UNION OF INDIA Vs. RAMESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are the Revision Petitions arising out of the common order dated March 9, 1994 passed in First Appeal Nos. 29,30,32,33,39,45,46,47,48 and 49 of 1994 by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, by which all those appeals were dismissed on the ground that those were barred by time. Feeling aggrieved against that order, the Union of India has filed these Revision Petitions.

(2.) ALL those appeals before the State Commission arose out of the Orders dated November 10,1993 passed by the District Forum, Faridkot in the various complaints. From the order of the State Commission, it is not clear on which date the appeals were presented before it. However, according to it, the appeals were filed after 63 days of the expiry of the prescribed time of 30 days under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and as such those were barred by time. It was further remarked by it that the Punjab Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 vide Sub-rule (4) of Rule 8 in express term provides that whenever a memorandum of appeal is preferred beyond the prescribed time, the same must be accompanied by an application for condonation of delay showing sufficient cause for the delay and should also be supported by an affidavit there for. As no such application has been preferred, the question of condonation of delay did not arise and hence there was no option but to hold that the appeals must fail on the bar of limitation.

(3.) AFTER going through the records of the case and hearing the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners we are of the opinion that in the present case the State Commission has acted with material illegality while dismissing the various appeals without ascertaining if there had been any delay in filing the appeal after the order of the District Forum had been communicated to the Department. Under the Rules framed under the Consumer Protection Rules by the various State Governments, it has been made incumbent that the order of the Forum constituted under the Act should be communicated to the parties free of charge. This Commission has consistently held in various cases that the time spent for obtaining the copy of the order should be excluded while computing the period of limitation of 30 days prescribed under the Act for filing the appeal. Thus the time for filing the appeal will run only from the date on which the order is communicated to the party. The aggrieved party can file an appeal within 30 days from the date of such communication. In the present case the orders of the District Forum show that those were attested on 21st January, 1994 and according to the Revision Petitioners the appeals were filed on 10th February, 1994. Thus there was no delay in filing the appeals before the State Commission as those were filed within 30 days of the communication of the orders by the District Forum. Hence the State Commission, in the present case, was not justified in dismissing the appeals on the ground of limitation.