JOSE ALEIXO PROENCA Vs. SUPREME CONSTRUCTIONSOPPOSITE PARTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -IN this revision, challenge is to the order dated 25. 8. 2003 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab, Chandigarh dismissing appeal filed against the orders dated 12. 4. 2001 and 6. 5. 2002 of a District Forum as being barred by limitation by 10 months and 26 days.

(2.) REGISTRY has reported that there is delay of 750 days in filing revision also against the State Commission's order. Along with petition, an application has been filed seeking condonation of delay in question in filing revision. The ground on which delay is sought to be condoned has been set out particularly in para No. 3 of the application. It is alleged that petitioner is 86 years old and almost remains confined to bed due to illness. After he was informed by the lawyer of the dismissal of SLP, it took sometime for him to consult the lawyer. After consultation, petitioner made arrangement for filing the present petition before this Commission. To be only noted that the date on which petitioner was intimated of the dismissal of SLP by his lawyer has not been disclosed in the said para nor the affidavit of Counsel has been filed. Copy of the order of Supreme Court placed on file would show that SLP was allowed to be withdrawn to seek remedy before this Commission vide order dated 25. 4. 2005. Present revision was filed on 23. 1. 2006. There is time gap of about more than 8 months between the order of Supreme Court and filing of present petition. Averments made in Para 3 as they stand in the absence of affidavit of Counsel, do not satisfactorily explain that delay. Application for condonation, therefore, deserves to be dismissed.

(3.) COMING to the merits, by the order dated 12. 4. 2001 the District Forum ordered the petitioner/o. P. No. 2 to pay amount of Rs. 58,250 with interest. This was part of the amount of Rs. 90,000 which the respondent/complainant had deposited with O. P. No. 1, proprietorship concern of petitioner pursuant to the advertisement for investment given by them. Para No. 3 of the order dated 12. 4. 2001 notices that the firm O. P. No. 1 did not appear despite service of notice and was proceeded ex parte on 22. 2. 2001. Order further notices that petitioner refused to accept the notice and was, therefore, proceeded ex parte on 28. 3. 2001. Another order of District Forum dated 6. 5. 2002 was passed on the execution application filed by the respondent sentencing the petitioner to simple imprisonment of one year and fine of Rs. 2,000 for not making payment of the awarded amount as per order dated 12. 4. 2001. This order also notices that notice in execution sent to the petitioner was received back with the postal remark 'refused' and petitioner was, thus, proceeded ex parte. Notice issued to firm/o. P. No. 1 was also received back with the report of postal Deptt, that office was locked. Aforesaid two orders passed by District Forum would show that petitioner deliberately allowed the complaint and execution proceedings to proceed ex parte against him. Explanation given by the petitioner that he came to know of the proceedings before the District Forum only on 25. 3. 2003 cannot be accepted. State Commission had rightly declined to condone the delay in question in filing appeal against the two orders in favour of respondent who is also a senior citizen. Otherwise also neither of the two orders of District Forum suffers from any legal infirmity. Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed being without any merit. Revision Petition dismissed.