RAJENDER RAJPUT Vs. JITENDER PRAKASH NANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision, challenge is to the order dated 19.12.2005 of M.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal dismissing appeal No. 1820/2005 against the order dated 16.8.2002 of a District Forum as barred by limitation of more than 3 years. In terms of the order dated 16.8.2002 the District Forum had directed the petitioner/O.P. No. 2 to pay amount of Rs. 28,600 with interest to respondent No. 1/complainant.

(2.) Order of State Commission would show that it was denied by the petitioner that he was served with the notice in the complaint. He alleged that he came to know of the order of District Forum for the first time on 11.9.2005 when warrant was issued against him under Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act). As may further be seen from the order of State Commission, that it had called for the file of District Forum to check the service of notice on the petitioner and after perusing thereof the Commission noticed that petitioner was served with the notice through his father living jointly with him and a copy of ex parte order was sent by the District Forum to the petitioner. Order also notices that petitioner had earlier filed appeal No. 910/2003 against the order of District Forum which was dismissed for default and non-compliance of the second proviso to Section 15 of the Act on 24.12.2003. Delay of more than 3 years in filing second appeal No. 1820/2005 was, therefore, not condoned and appeal dismissed as time-barred.

(3.) On being confronted how appeal No. 1820/2005 was maintainable in view of earlier appeal No. 910/2003 being dismissed on 24.12.2003. Mr. Ashutosh Sharma for petitioner submitted that appeal No. 910/2003 was not filed by the petitioner or under his authority. Same was the stand taken by petitioner before the State Commission. Order under challenge notices the observation made by State Commission that memo of appeal was signed by the petitioner and also his Counsel Mr. N.K. Saxena and, therefore, it could not be accepted that petitioner came to know of the District Forum's order for the first time on 11.9.2005 as alleged. To be only noted that along with revision petition neither the affidavit of Mr. N.K. Saxena, Advocate denying signature on memo of appeal has been filed nor is it alleged in petition that memo of appeal was not filed by the petitioner and Mr. Saxena. At the cost of repetition it may be mentioned that notice in complaint was found to be served on the father of petitioner and copy of ex parte order of District Forum also sent by the District Forum to the petitioner. In this backdrop, we do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error with the meaning of Section 21(b) of the Act in the order passed by State Commission declining to condone the delay in question and dismissing appeal as time-barred. Accordingly, revision petition is dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.