VIRAJ OVERSEAS PVT LTD Vs. HINDUSTAN MOTORS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NOTWITHSTANDING the earnest endeavour made by learned Counsel for the appellant to pursuade us to interfere with the Order passed by the State Commission dismissing the complaint Petition for default of Complainant's appearance, we do not find any valid grounds to accede to the said prayer. It is seen from the records of the State Commission that despite his having been duly informed about the posting of the complaint petition for final disposal on 5th June, 1991, the complainant as well as his Counsel remained absent when the case was taken up for hearing. On the previous date of the hearing of the case also, the complainant was not present either in person or through authorised representative. In such circumstances we are of opinion that the State Commission was perfectly justified in dismissing the complaint petition, for default.

(2.) THERE is also one further ground on which this appeal deserves to be rejected and that is, that it has been filed very much beyond the period of limitation specified by the statute namely, 30 days from the date of the State Commissions Order or the date of its communication to the complainant, whichever is later. The Order impugned bears the date June 18,1991. 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 which was filed here only on October 17,1991 was clearly time barred. No valid explanation has been furnished by the appellant for the delay. Hence on this ground also we consider that the appeal has to be rejected.