NATIONAL SAVINGS, BHOPAL vs PREM AGGARWAL

HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order passed by the District Forum was not delivered to the petitioner either at Bhopal or at Nagpur in the Regional Office. It was brought to their notice only at the time of execution of the order passed by the District Forum. Under the directions of the Ministry of Finance, the petitioner''s Bhopal Office was merged with the Nagpur Office and the address 89, Malviya Nagar, Bhopal, ceased to exist. It is further submitted that as a result of the aforesaid restructuring, many employees took voluntary retirement and the official records were weeded out. The concerned officials who dealt with the case at the relevent time had retired and the petitioner was not aware of the facts of this case. By the time, the papers were collected and permission to file this Revision Petition was obtained, there was a delay of 454 days in filing this Revision Petition before this Commission. Before the State Commission the petitioner had filed the appeal after 8 months and the State Commission did not condone the delay in filing the appeal.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that before the State Commission the appeal was not barred by limitation but admitted that there is delay in filing Revision Petition for the reasons given in the application. After going through the reasons stated in the application, we find it difficult to believe that such a large department takes a plea that an official, who was aware of the facts of the case, had retired and, hence, there was delay in filing the Revision Petition. We are, therefore, unable to condone the delay on the said ground taken by the petitioner. The State Commission, after hearing the petitioner in the appeal, has not agreed with the pleas taken by the petitioner that the certified copy was not received by them and did not condone delay.

Although, before the State Commission, the learned Counsel for the petitioner argued extensively on the issue of limitation, it is submitted that the same is not dealt with in the order passed by the State Commission.

FOR a small amount of Rs. 1007.50, we do not want to interfere with the order passed by the District FORum for the lapses of the petitioner both before the State Commission and this Commission. It is clear from the very face of the record that the petitioner has not considered the aspect of limitation under Consumer Protection Act but acted in a casual manner in filing the appeal and Revision Petition. Considering that the amount is very small, we are not reflecting anything on the merits of the case. Hence, this revision petition is dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.