ALLA VENKAT REDDY Vs. VELLANKI SYAM PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 30 th December, 2016 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Telangana at Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to "the State Commission) by which the State Commission has declined to condone the delay of 187 days in filing the Appeal.

(2.) We have heard Mr. E. Jaganwadha Sastrulu, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Ms. A. Subhashini, learned Counsel for the Respondent and have perused the impugned order passed by the State Commission.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner had given sufficient reasons for not filing the Appeal within the stipulated period and, therefore, the State Commission ought to have condoned the delay of 187 days in filing the Appeal. Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant, however, submitted that the conduct of the Petitioner was not above board and, therefore, the State Commission had rightly declined to condone the delay in filing the Appeal. From perusal of the impugned order passed by the State Commission, we find that in the first round of litigation the Petitioner had filed an Appeal before the State Commission with a delay of 179 days which was not condoned by the State Commission, whereupon in the Revision Petition filed before the National Commission, the Petition was allowed and the delay was condoned. The matter was remanded to the State Commission for deciding on merits. On remand, the State Commission further remanded the matter to the District Forum for deciding the Complaint case in accordance with law. Before the District Forum, the Petitioner remained ex-parte. The order was passed by the District Forum on 26.02.2015. The Execution Application was filed by the Complainant before the District Forum in which initially the notice was issued and subsequently when the Appellant did not appear, non-bailable warrants were issued. It was executed. The Petitioner was arrested and produced before the Executing Court. Before the Executing Court, a statement was made by the Petitioner that the Petitioner had preferred an Appeal before the State Commission. Therefore, the District Forum stayed the execution of non-bailable warrant. Subsequently, the Complainant made enquiry before the State Commission and came to know that no such Appeal had been preferred. It was brought to the notice of the District Forum, which again issued the non-bailable warrants and the Petitioner was arrested. Thereafter, the Petitioner preferred an Appeal before the State Commission with a delay of 187 days. For ready reference relevant portion of the order passed by the State Commission is reproduced below: -