SECRETARY Vs. CHINNANDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), by the Secretary of Uthamapalayam Cooperative Building Society Ltd. , Opposite Party No. 4 in the Complaint under the Act, is to the order dated 10. 07. 2017, passed by the Tamilnadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Madurai (for short "the State Commission") in CMP No. 243/2015 in FASR No. 340/2015. By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the Appeal, preferred by the Revision Petitioner herein, on the ground that it was barred by limitation, the delay being 1689 days.

(2.) It is observed from the record that the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Theni (for short "the District Forum") has observed in the order dated 20. 01. 2011 that Opposite Parties No. 2, 4 and 5 had filed their vakalatnama on 29. 10. 2010 through their Advocate and Opposite Parties No. 1 and 3 had filed a memo for filing their vakalatnama. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned six times. However, there was no representation on behalf of the Opposite Parties. After granting a final opportunity, on 13. 01. 2011 the Opposite Parties were set ex-parte. It is relevant to note that this order, setting the Opposite Parties ex-parte on 13. 01. 2011, was never challenged. The substantive order dated 20. 01. 2011 was challenged before the State Commission with the delay of 1689 days, i. e. more than four years. While dismissing the Appeal, the State Commission has observed as follows:

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner has vehemently argued that the management of the Petitioner Society has changed and the elected board of the management was not aware of the pendency of the case and that no copy of the ex-parte order was served upon them.