At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
By, THE HONOURABLE DR. S.M. KANTIKAR
By, PRESIDING MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MR. DINESH SINGH
For the Petitioners: Mahendra Singh, Rajat Sharma, Advocates. For the Respondent: Charan Singh, Advocate.
1. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioners – opposite parties and the learned counsel for the respondent – complainant. Perused the material on record.
2. The complaint was dismissed by the District Forum vide its Order dated 23.11.2016. The revisionists – opposite party – M/s Agarwal Packers & Movers DRS Group filed an appeal in the State Commission with admitted delay of 221 days. The State Commission dismissed the appeal vide its impugned Order dated 30.11.2017.
3. The State Commission inter alia observed as below:
Heard the Ld. Advocates of the parties on the issue and perused the material on record.
It is though contended by the Appellants that they did not receive any notice from the Ld. District Forum in respect of the complaint case, it transpires from the impugned order that notice was issued to both the Appellants. However, despite proper service of notice, they did not turn up before the Ld. District Forum.
That apart, there is no such averment from the side of the Appellants that notice in respect of the Execution Case was also not served upon them. Therefore, it can safely be inferred that they did receive notice of the Execution Case. Question arises, whey they did not approach the Ld. District Forum forthwith to defend their case. Unfortunately, the Appellants have not shown any cogent ground for not acting upon the Execution Notice being issued by the Ld. District Forum.
On going through the record, it appears that the Appellants have filed mere photocopies of relevant documents those were filed in the complaint case. Going by the assertion of the Appellants that they did not receive any notice from the Ld. District Forum in respect of the complaint case, we wonder, if that was indeed the case, wherefrom did they get hold of the relevant documents pertaining to the complaint case. Had they obtained certified copies of all documents from the Ld. District Forum, the same would invariably contain necessary endorsement of the Ld. District Forum like the copy of impugned order.
It is absolutely clear, therefore, that the Appellants have not approached this Commission with clean hands. This is highly deplorable. The ground shown in the petition for condonation of delay being not tenable the same is rejected with a cost of Rs.20,000/-, payable to the Respondent by the Appellants.
Consequently, the Appeal also stands dismissed being hopelessly barred by limitation.
(emphasis supplied by us)
4. This revision has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Act 1986 against the said Order dated 30.11.2017 of the State Commission, which reads as below:
…to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.
5. We find that the impugned Order dated 30.11.2017 of the State Commission is well-appraised and well-reasoned. We do not find any jurisdictional error or legal principle ignored or material irregularity therein.
6. We specifically note that the State Commission in dismissing the appeal did not find just or sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the appeal ('_ _ _ The ground shown in the petition for condonation of delay being not tenable the same is rejected _ _ _' and '_ _ _ the Appeal also stands dismissed being hopelessly barred by limitation _ _ _'). We also note that the State Commission, for reasons stated, observed that ' _ _ _ It is absolutely clear, therefore, that the Appellants have not approached this Commission with clean hands. This is highly deplorable _ _ _'.
7. We find no reason to exercise this Commission’s
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
revisional jurisdiction to interfere with the impugned Order of the State Commission. 8. We may observe that a bare reading of the State Commission ‘s Order shows that the revisionists – Packers & Movers have shown complete disregard to law, and may, perhaps, (now) realise that, at times, ‘dura lex, sed lex’, ‘the law is harsh, but it is the law’. 9. The revision petition is dismissed.