RAJ KISHORE S/O. SHRI NATHUNI PRASAD vs KAMOD SINGH & ANR.

This revision is directed against the order of the UP State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (in short, "the State Commission") dated 1.7.2015 in first appeal No.134/2001, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner/respondent No.2.

On perusal of record we find that respondent No.1/Shri Kamod Singh filed a consumer complaint in District Forum Kushinagar alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, namely, Anand Kumar Maddhesia, and the petitioner. The complaint was filed in the year 1994.

The District Forum, Kushinagar on consideration of pleadings of the parties and the evidence, allowed the complaint vide order dated 30.12.2000. By the said order the petitioner/opposite party No.2 was directed to pay the amount of stamp papers worth Rs.3,000/- with 10% interest w.e.f. 3.11.1999 to the respondent/complainant.

Being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the State Commission being first appeal No.134/2001. The appeal remained pending for almost 14 years and it came to be dismissed by the impugned order wherein the State Commission observed that from the record it transpires that the appellant/opposite party No.2 had not been appearing for the last several dates of hearing.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order of the State Commission is not sustainable for the reason that non-appearance of the appellant on respective dates of hearing was unintentional as he was not aware of the date of hearing. We do not find merit in this contention. This is an unfortunate case in which the appeal filed against the award of Rs.3,000/- with 10% interest remained pending for almost 14 years and the State Commission instead of dismissing the appeal on the first date for non-appearance on the part of the appellant, showed indulgence and kept on giving adjournments. The plea of the petitioner that he was not aware of the date of hearing is not acceptable. Admittedly, the appeal was filed in the year 2001. If the plea of the petitioner is to be accepted, then it is obvious that the appellant kept on sleeping over the matter and did not make any effort whatsoever to find out the fate of his appeal for a long period of 14 years. This conduct by itself shows that the petitioner/opposite party No.2 was negligent in pursuing the appeal, therefore, we do not find any fault with the order of the State Commission, dismissing the appeal in default. Revision petition is accordingly dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the appellant to the respondent/complainant for the delay caused.