UNIPACK MOVERS PVT LTD Vs. S K JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN order to verify the correctness and truth of the averments contained in the Memorandum of Revision that the Revision Petitioner had not been served with any notice of the complaint petition filed in the District Forum before the Ex-parte order was passed against him, we called for a Report from the District Forum, Delhi as per our Order dated 6th April, 1992.

(2.) IN compliance with the said Order, the District Forum has submitted its Report dated 25th May, 1992 wherein it has been categorically stated that a notice was sent to the present Revision Petitioner who was the Opposite Party before the District Forum by Registered Post on 1.12.19 89 and that service of the notice has been effected on the respondent on 11.12.1989 as was seen from the entries contained on the registered postal acknowledgement which is on record. In the light of the said Report, we seen no reason to interfere with the Order passed by the State Commission declining to condone the delay in presentation of the appeal which was preferred before it by the Revision Petitioner. The Order passed by the State Commission is not vitiated by any error of jurisdiction not by any material irregularity pertaining to jurisdiction. In the circumstances, this Revision Petition has to fail and it is accordingly dismissed. The District Forum is directed to take steps for enforcement of the Order passed in the case under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.