NTP TOURISM AFFAIRS LIMITED vs SUDHA TALASILA

This revision petition is directed against the order of the State Commission dated 27.12.2016 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner company was dismissed as barred by limitation, the delay in filing the appeal being little more than two years.

The affidavit which the petitioner company had filed before the State Commission alongwith the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, to the extent it is relevant, reads as under: 1. I am the petitioner herein and opposite party in, before the Honourable Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hyderabad, Telangana and as such I am well acquainted with the facts and circumstances deposed hereunder. I am deposing this affidavit on behalf of the opposite party, wherein I am employed as the Manager and that I have preferred the above appeal aggrieved by the order and judgment passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in complaint case No. 314/2013 dated seventeenth Septemeber 2013 entitled as Smt. Sudha Talasila w/o Anil Kumar Vs NTP Tourism Affairs Limited represented by me, their Manager, wherein the opposite party could not attend/represent the matter through their counsel, as the opposite party was neither informed nor notified by the complainant about filing of complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Hyderabad, hence the opposite party remained absent during the entire proceedings of the complaint and was called absent by virtue of the opposite party being continuously absent the opposite party was set exparte and the Learned District Forum was pleased to pass the judgment/order against the Appellant on the Seventeenth September 2013. Hence, this judgment/order is impugned in this Appeal. I respectfully submit that the above appeal could not be filed within the limitation period of 30(thirty) days due to the aforementioned reasons as the opposite party was sincerely was not aware about the case.

I respectfully submit that having being truly aggrieved by the order, I had detailed consultations/discussions with my counsel regarding the case/matter, after which my counsel had filed an application for obtaining the certified copies of the order and other documents, which was received by my counsel on the 16 th September 2015, subsequently my counsel advised me to prefer an appeal before the Hon?ble State Commission, in the interest of justice. It is submitted that owing to the above mentioned reasons and circumstances which are true and sincere a delay of 735 days in filing this Appeal had occurred which is neither intentional nor deliberate.

It would thus be seen from a perusal of the affidavit as extracted hereinabove that the petitioner/appellant did not disclose to the State Commission as to when and how it had come to know of the order which it had impugned before the State Commission. In order to satisfy the State Commission of its bonafide, the least the petitioner company was expected was to disclose was the date on which it had come to know of the order of the District Forum and the source through which had had learnt of the said order. That having not been done, it can be safely said that the abnormal delay of more than two years in filing the appeal before the State Commission did not stand satisfactorily explained. It would also be pertinent to note here that as per the practice of District Forum, free copies of the orders are sent to the parties. There is no averment in the affidavit filed before the State Commission that no copy of the order was received by the petitioner company from the District Forum. In the ordinary course of events, such a copy would have been sent to the petitioner company. This is yet another circumstance which creates serious doubt about the bonafides of the petitioner company.

The consumer complaint in this matter came to be filed in April 2013. Four years since filing of the complaint have already expired. One of the objectives behind enactment of the Consumer Protection Act is to provide a speedy remedy to a person aggrieved on account of any defect or deficiency in the goods purchased or services hired or availed by him. It is towards attaining this objective that the Act enjoins upon the District Forum to endeavor to decide a consumer complaint within a period of three months. The said objective is bound to be defeated if the appeals before the State Commission filed after the delay of more than two years are entertained, without there being a satisfactory explanation for the said delay.

For the reasons stated hereinabove, I find no good reason to interfere with the view taken by the State Commission. The revision petition is therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.