At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
By, PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner: Vivek Sarin, Advocate. For the Respondents: -----
Oral:These revision petitions are directed against the orders of the State Commission dated 17.03.2020 whereby the said Commission dismissed the revision petitions filed by the petitioner company against an order of the District Forum. There was a delay of 131 days in filing the revision petitions before the State Commission. The petitioner, therefore, filed applications seeking condonation of that delay. The State Commission declined to condone the delay and consequently dismissed the revision petitions as barred by limitation.2. I have also heard the Ld. counsel for the petitioner on the maintainability of the revision petitions and he has drawn my attention to a Three-Member Bench decision of this Commission in Shrikant Gopalrao Prabhune Vs. Branch Manager, HDFC Bank Ltd. & Ors. 2015 SCC OnLine NCDRC 4793 where this Commission, inter alia, held that a revision petition would be maintainable against an order passed by the State Commission in its appellate or revisional jurisdiction.3. A perusal of the impugned orders would show that according to the petitioner company on receipt of the consumer complaints, it had entrusted the matter to its law firm namely Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas on 17.07.2019. The consumer complaints were scheduled to be listed before the State Commission on 06.08.2019. Since the petitioner was not represented by a counsel on that date it was proceeded ex-parte though according to the petitioner even 30 days, from the date on which the copy of the consumer complaints were received by it, had not expired by that time. This is also the case of the petitioner company that thereafter they engaged another law firm on 14.08.2019 and entrusted the matters to the other law firm namely Commercial Law Chambers. When the newly engaged law firm checked the status of the matters, they found that the petitioner had been proceeded ex-parte and the matters had been listed for ex-parte arguments. The revision petitions were thereafter drafted and filed and this resulted in delay of 131 days in filing the revision petitions. In my opinion, considering the ground given by the petitioner company while seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision petitions as well as the extent of the delay, this was not a case of outright rejection of the applications seeking condonation of delay and the State Commission should have decided the applications seeking condonation of delay after hearing the complainants. The impugned orders are, therefore, set aside and the matters are remitted back to the State Commission which shall issue notice of the revision petitions as well as accompanying applications seeking condonation of delay in both the revision petitions to the complainants and thereafter decide the revision petitions on its merits.4. The Ld. counsel for the petitioner submits that the consumer compla
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
ints are listed before the District Forum on 16.12.2020 and 21.12.2020 respectively. The petitioner is permitted to seek an adjournment from the District Forum on these dates on the strength of this order. The petitioner shall appear before the State Commission on 10.12.2020. The revision petitions stand disposed of.