B.R. MANJU NATH Vs. MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this revision petition is to the order dated 4.10.2010 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore ('State Commission', in short) upholding the order dated 4.5.2010 passed by the Second Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bangalore.

(2.) At the outset, it is noted that there is delay of 480 days in filing the revision petition. The petitioner has filed an application for condonation of this delay. It is submitted in the application that initially the petitioner challenged the impugned order before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka through a writ petition bearing No.29949/2011 but later on, the same was allowed to be withdrawn vide its order dated 26.9.2011. While permitting the petitioner to withdraw the petition, liberty was granted to the petitioner to approach this Commission. However, even if the filing of this writ petition is taken into consideration, the delay from 26.9.2011 till the filing of the revision petition on 26.4.2012 before this Commission has not been explained satisfactorily. In view of this, we are not inclined to condone the delay and the revision petition can be dismissed on this ground alone. However, we have looked into the merits as well.

(3.) Briefly stated, the petitioner was the original complainant and the respondent was the opposite party before the District Forum. The petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. When the matter was posted for filing written version, the OP filed a Memo through his Advocate in the presence of the counsel for the petitioner to the effect that the dispute had been settled amicably between the parties. The District Forum accepted the said Memo as the matter was settled out of court and closed the file vide its aforesaid order. The petitioner, however, carried the matter before the State Commission by filing an appeal against the order of the District Forum. The State Commission vide its impugned order upheld the order of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal of the petitioner.