WHEELS WORLD Vs. UMDA SINGH LAMBA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) What should be the approximately reasonable period within which a revision petition under Sec.17 (1) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act should ordinarily be preferred, is the significant threshold question in the case.

(2.) The facts relevant to the issue aforesaid alone merit a brief recapitulation. Way back in the mid year 1990 Sh. Umda Singh Lamba, Advocate had preferred a complaint against the present revision petitioner M/s. Wheels World before the District Forum at Hisar. The order in the said complaint was rendered against the petitioner exparte as late as the 3rd of August, 1990. Apparently no appeal against the said order was preferred. Partial default in compliance with the order aforesaid having taken place, the District Forum initiated proceedings against the petitioner under Sec.27 and directed them to appear before the Forum on the 14th of February, 1991. In a written reply thereto the petitioner took up the stand that they were not liable to pay any interest as well as expenses which had been directed to be paid by the original order. It would seem that no personal appearance or through Counsel was put in and the District Forum construing the stand taken in refusing to comply fully with the earlier order as somewhat contumacious, directed that Sh. Madan Lal, Company Secretary be sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one month and pay a fine of Rs.500/-. This order was rendered on the 21st of February, 1991.

(3.) It was as late as the 1st of July, 1991 that the present revision petition has been presented against the very initiation of proceedings under Sec.27 of the Act. As already noticed, this would be nearly five months later from the date of the original issue of notice under Sec.27 of the Act and equally belated as regards the final order passed in the said proceedings. Inevitably the matter was first listed for arguments on the preliminary issue of limitation.