DDF Vs. MURUGAN COLD STORAGE PVT. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against impugned order dated 04 -07 -2011 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Andhra Pradesh (in short, 'the State Commission ') in Appeal No.293 of 2009 - M/s DDF (Davood Fruit Merchant) Vs. M/s Murugan Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. by which, while allowing the appeal, order of the District Forum allowing complaint partly, was set aside and complaint was dismissed.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner purchased apples worth Rs.26,08,907/ - and same were stored in cold storage of opposite party/respondent. When complainant was lifting the stock, he was informed that apples worth Rs. 20 lakhs have been damaged. Complainant alleged that apples were damaged due to mismanagement of opposite party and alleging deficiency on the part of the opposite party filed complaint before the District Forum. Opposite party contested the complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties partly allowed the complaint and directed opposite party to pay an amount of Rs. 4 lakhs along with 9% p.a. interest. Appeal filed by the respondent was allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order, against which this revision petition has been filed along with application for condonation of delay.

(3.) PETITIONER , along with revision petition, has filed application for condonation of delay of 57 days whereas as per office report there is delay of 592 days in filing the revision petition. Perusal of application reveals that learned State Commission passed impugned order on 04 -07 -2011 and issued free copy on 12 -07 -2011. Petitioner contacted his advocate in the month of August, 2011 but as his file was missing from the advocate 's office, he could not get opinion from the advocate. In the third week of December, 2012 file was traced and petitioner applied for certified copy of the impugned order on 21 -12 -2012 and received on 27 -12 -2012. It was further mentioned that his counsel asked him to approach another advocate appearing in the National Commission and petitioner 's present counsel was approached in March, 2013 and revision petition has been filed on 24th May, 2013.