VYSYA BANK Vs. K.R.MANJULAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE heard the learned Counsel on both sides.

(2.) WE do not find any ground for condoning the inordinate delay of 259 days in presenting the appeal which is sought to be condoned in this application FA. IA. No. 872/1999 preferred by the opposite party in CDC. No. 10/1997, which is Vysya Bank represented by its Branch Manager, Madanapalle. The opposite party Bank has preferred the appeal FA. SR. No. 2374/1999 on 18.8.1999 questioning the order of the Chittoor District Forum in CDC No. 10/1997 dated 30.10.1998. Admittedly copy of the order was received by the petitioner office on 12.11.1998 as stated in the grounds of appeal. It is stated in the affidavit in support of the application for condoning the delay that the petitioner filed an application for review of the order of the District Forum and that the same was dismissed as not maintainable by order of the District Forum dated 31.7.1999. The review petition itself was presented on 23.2.1999 i.e., nearly two months after the time for presenting the appeal expired '' as the copy of the order of the District Forum was received on 12.11.1998 and the last date for presenting the appeal was 12.12.1998. Only after the complainant i.e., the respondent in this petition and appeal, preferred an application for enforcement of the order of the District Forum under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ( the Act for short) and after notice in that application was received, the petitioner took steps for presenting the appeal. In Viraj Overseas Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Hindustan Motors Ltd. & Ors., II (1992) CPJ 360 (NC), the National Commission held in a case where a State Commission dismissed a complaint for default as follows : After it came to the knowledge of the complainant instead of filing an appeal before this Commission, the complainant chose to move the State Commission with an application for restoration of the complaint petition which had been dismissed for default. The pendency of that application which was ultimately dismissed by the State Commission, will not operate to stop the running of the period of limitation and the appeal...was clearly time barred. No valid explanation has been furnished by the appellant for the delay.  This was followed by us in Dr. P. Nageswara Rao v. P. Seshagiri Rao & Anr., Order in FA. IA. No. 792/99 and FA. SR. No. 1778/99, dated 21.10.1999. The same principle would apply where an ex parte order in a complaint was sought to be set aside by the opposite party instead of preferring an appeal against it and then later seeking to have the time taken for the application for setting aside the ex arte order excluded in computing the time in preferring an appeal against it subsequently. It is very well settled that the Tribunals under the Act do not have the power to set aside ex parte orders passed by them '' Sri Lakshmi Priya Township Promoters Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. v. V. Prasanth, III (1998) CPJ 1=1998 ALD (CONSUMER) 1; and Chairman, Siva Sivani Edn. Society, Secunderabad v. A. Rama Sastry, 1999 (2) ALD (CONSUMER) 41. In the circumstances we do not find any ground for condoning the inordinate delay in presenting the appeal.

(3.) IN the result, FA. IA. No. 872/1999 is dismissed and consequently the appeal FA. SR. No. 2374/1999 is rejected. Appeal dismissed.