RAVI RAGHAVA CHIT FUNDS AND FINANCE vs BODDULA RAJASTHAN

-THIS revision petition is filed against the order dated 19. 9. 2002 of the A. P. State Commission in interlocutory application No. 1562 in F. A. No. 3844 of 2002, dismissing the application to condone the delay of 818 days in filing the first appeal and devoid of merit and, subsequently, dismissing the first appeal. The brief facts are as follows:

THE respondent/original complainant, is subscriber of chit fund run by the revision petitioner approached the District Forum. Vijaywada complaining that though he was the highest bidder, he was not paid the chit amount of Rs. 19,050. Notices sent to the O. P. by the District Forum were returned with the endorsement "continuously 7 days absent " "abolished" and "not claimed". The Forum ordered substituted service and application was made in a local newspaper. Even then there was no response from the opposite party. As such the District Forum passed an ex parte order on merit ordering the opposite party to pay Rs. 19,040 with interest at 24% per annum from 1. 1. 1999 till realisation and also awarded cost of Rs. 1,000 to the complainant. This order of the District Forum dated 15. 5. 2000 was despatched to the opposite party on 17. 5. 2000.

However, as there was no compliance with the order, the complainant/respondent before us filed a penalty petition under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum. During the pendency of this penalty petition, the Chit Fund organiser, i. e. , the present revision petitioner filed an application before the District Forum some time in August, 2002 pleading that the ex parte order passed by the District Forum should be set aside. This application was also considered by the District Forum on merits and was dismissed by it on 19. 8. 2002 by a well-reasoned order. Thereafter, the revision petitioner filed a first appeal No. 3844 of 2002 before A. P. State Commission. The A. P. State Commission dismissed the appeal on 19. 8. 2002 on grounds of inordinate delay of 818 days for which no proper explanation has been forthcoming. It is again this order that the present revision petition has been filed.

NO new arguments have been advanced before us. The main arguments advanced before the State Commission and before us are that revision petitioner came to know about the pendency of proceedings before the District Forum only on 6. 8. 2002 when the police went to arrest him in pursuance of penalty petition filed by the original complainant. The second argument was that the respondent knows its correct residential address and deliberately gave a wrong address while filing the original complaint but furnish the correct address particulars to get him arrested in the penalty proceedings. He also raised a feeble argument that the original complainant while was also the subscriber of the chit and that she participated in auction and received some amount which fact was suppressed by the original complainant. The last argument has been directly rejected by the District Forum and a private arrangement which has not been proved. As the repeated notices issued by the District Forum not been served on the revision petitioner, the District Forum followed substituted service. As correctly observed by the State Commission, there has been no averment from the revision petitioner as to what happened to the copy of the District Forum''s order which was properly despatched on 17. 5. 2000. A presumption has to drawn that the copy of the order so despatched has reached the revision petitioner. The District Forum also clearly recorded the finding that the address of the revision petitioner given in the original complaint and in the penalty proceedings was the same and that there is no merit in the argument that the original complainant deliberately gave a wrong address. No reliance can be placed on an unsubstantial statement that the revision petitioner was not in the know of the proceedings for full three years. With the above discussions, we pass the following order. The revision petition, therefore, stands dismissed on grounds of limitation. The order of the State Commission dated 19. 9. 2002 is confirmed. No order as to costs. Revision petition dismissed.