NAGAR PANCHAYAT, KAILARAS vs Shivraj Singh Sikarvar

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 20.06.2012 passed by the M.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No. 2212/2010 Nagar Panchayat, Kailaras Vs. Shivraj Singh Sikarwar by which, appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation.

COMPLAINANT /respondent filed complaint before District forum. OP contested complaint and learned District Forum by order dated 23.9.2009 allowed complaint and directed OP to pay Rs.50,000/ - with interest to the complainant and further directed to pay Rs.1,000/ - as compensation and Rs.1,000/ - as cost. OP filed appeal along with application for condonation of delay and learned State Commission vide impugned order dismissed application for condonation of delay as well appeal against which, this revision petition has been filed.

HEARD learned Counsel for the parties and perused record. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as petitioner was not aware about order of District Forum till 16.9.2010, there was no delay in filing appeal and learned State Commission committed error in dismissing appeal is barred by limitation; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.

PERUSAL of order sheet of District Forum reveals that Counsel for OP regularly appeared before District Forum and District Forum after hearing arguments on 14.9.2009 adjourned for pronouncement of judgment to 23.9.2009. It further appears that on 23.9.2009, judgment was pronounced in the absence of Counsel for OP. Learned Counsel for petitioner submitted that as at the time of pronouncement of judgment Counsel for OP was not present, he was not aware about the judgment and, so, appeal could not be filed in time. This argument is devoid of force because when case was fixed for judgment on 23.9.2009, Counsel for OP was required to appear before District Forum and if judgment was pronounced by the District Forum in his absence it cannot be presumed that he was not aware about the judgment. Not only this, perusal of order sheet further reveals that Counsel for OP also received copy of order of District Forum probably on the same day as it bears signatures of Counsel for the complainant also, meaning thereby, Counsels for both the parties received copy of order of District Forum on the same day. In such circumstances, by no stretch of imagination it can be presumed that OP was not aware about the order on the date of pronouncement. Learned State Commission rightly observed that even after assuming charge by CMO on 3.4.2010, , nothing was done till 16.9.2010 when notice of execution was served. There is no explanation for condonation of delay of about one year. Learned State Commission has not committed any error in dismissing application for condonation of delay as well appeal.

AS there is inordinate delay of one year, this delay cannot be condoned in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon''ble Apex Court in (1) Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and Anr, 2010 5 SCC 459 (2) Office of The Chief Post Master General and Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. and Anr, 2012 3 SCC 563 and (3) Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority,2012 2 CPC 3

IN the light of aforesaid discussion, revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

CONSEQUENTLY , revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed with no order as to costs.