CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA Vs. AYODHYA PRASAD AWASTHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner bank challenging order dated 21.01.2013 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.P., Lucknow (for short, 'State Commission') in Appeal No. 232 of 2007 whereby the State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 02.01.2007 passed by the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Unnao (for short, 'District Forum) in Complaint Case No.218 of 2005. Since there is a delay in filing this revision petition, petitioner has also filed I.A. No.8178 of 2013 for condonation of delay.

(2.) We have heard learned Shri Luv Kumar Agarwal, Advocate for the petitioner on application of the petitioner for condonation of delay in filing this revision petition. While the petitioner has not mentioned the period of delay in this application or the accompanying affidavit in support of the application, as per the note put up by the office, there is a delay of 202 days in filing the revision petition beyond the prescribed period of 90 days under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Reasons given by the petitioner in support of its request for condonation are contained in paras 4 to 9 of the affidavit filed by Ms.Usha Singh, Chief Manager in the petitioner bank on behalf of the petitioner. These reasons are reproduced thus:-

(3.) It would be seen from the aforesaid submissions explaining the reasons for the delay that since the impugned order dated 21.01.2013 was passed by the State Commission in the absence of the petitioner or its representative, the petitioner could not come know about this order. It is further submitted that none had appeared on behalf of the petitioner on the date of the impugned order because the petitioner did not have notice of the appeal being taken up by the State Commission on 21.01.2013 and the final order being passed against it. It is stated that the petitioner came to know about the impugned order first time when the recovery notice was issued by the Tehsildar, Unnao against the bank. However, even though the petitioner bank satisfied the notice of recovery by paying the recovery amount to the Tehsildar, there is no mention of the date on which recovery notice was received by the bank and when it made the payment of recovery amount. It is further submitted that thereafter, on 09.09.2013, the counsel of the petitioner bank, Sh. Kaushal Kishore inspected the court file and obtained certified copy of judgment and all ordersheets. In the process, the delay was caused but it is contended by the petitioner that it was beyond the petitioner's control and was neither deliberate nor intentional but occurred in the circumstances stated in the affidavit.