RAVI SAGAR DAMBHARE vs VANMALA YESHWANT GAJBHIYE

This revision petition is directed against the order of the State Commission dated 13.07.2016 whereby the said Commission declined to condone the delay of more than four years in filing an appeal against the order of the District Forum dated 24.12.2010 and consequently dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner as barred by limitation.

The order by the District Forum came to be passed on 24.12.2010. Admittedly, a certified copy of the said order was received by the petitioner on 08.01.2011. The application which the petitioner had filed before the District Forum seeking condonation of delay of more than four years in filing the appeal, to the extent it is relevant, reads as under:

"2. That the impugned order was passed on 24.12.2010. Certified copy of the said order was received by the appellant on 6.1.2011. That the appeal is being filed today, i.e., on 12.2.2015. Thus, there is delay of more than four years and one month in filing the appeal.

It is submitted that by the said order, dated 24.12.2010 the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagpur has directed the appellant to return the amount of Rs.2,95,121/- within one month from the date of passing of the order with 12% simple interest per annum and also to pay Rs.10,000/- for mental harassment and also cost of complaint of Rs.1,000/-, total Rs.11,000/- to the respondent. It was further directed that the appellant should comply with the order within 30 days, otherwise the appellant will be liable to pay 18% simple interest per annum on the amount due. That the appellant had no sufficient funds to make the payment of such a huge amount. As such, there were efforts made by both the parties to arrive at the settlement. As such, there was a compromise reached between the parties. That as per the said compromise, the appellant has paid an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the respondent, which the respondent has received. Thus, the appellant was all the while under bonafide impression that the matter was settled and there was no need to file the appeal. However, in spite of the compromise, now the respondent has backed out of the compromise and has filed execution proceedings before Executing Court for execution of the impugned order passed on 24.12.2010. That in spite of previous payment of Rs.1,50,000/- to the respondent, the appellant has offered to make additional payment of Rs.50,000/- to the respondent vide Demand Draft No.010332 drawn on Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Urban Cooperative Bank on 8.6.2012. However, the respondent has refused to accept the same. That because of this, there is delay in filing the instant appeal, which is bonafide and genuine. That this attitude on the part of the respondent is totally uncalled for and unwarranted. Hence, the appellant is constrained to approach this Hon''ble Commission by way of the appeal. That there is facie case as well as balance of convenience in favour of the appellant. That the delay caused is bonafide and genuine and is not intentional and it is caused only because of the reasons, beyond the control the appellant."

It would thus be seen that the only ground given by the petitioner to justify the abnormal delay of more than four years in filing the appeal was that the parties had entered into a settlement whereunder the petitioner was to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainant/respondent but later on, the complainant backed out of the said settlement. However, there is no documentary evidence of the alleged settlement. It is difficult to believe that despite the District Forum having ruled against the petitioner, he would have entered into an oral settlement with the complainant/respondent. In the normal course of human conduct, a settlement after the order of the District Forum on merits would have been in writing and not oral. Therefore, the plea of the alleged oral settlement does not inspire confidence and cannot be believed and consequently, there is no explanation for the delay of more than four years in filing the appeal before the State Commission.

The learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the decision of this Commission in Mohan Lal & Anr. Vs. UHBVN & Anr. 2010(1) CPR 368 (NC). In the aforesaid case, there was a delay of 57 days in filing the appeal. However, in the case before this Commission, there was delay of more than four years in filing the appeal before the State Commission and the said delay remained wholly unexplained since a false plea of the alleged oral settlement was taken. The decision relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner therefore, does not apply in this case. The revision petition being devoid of any merits is therefore, dismissed.