A ALAGESAN Vs. T KAMALAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Revision Petition has been filed with a delay of 72 days. Mr. Manimuthu, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, has sufficiently explained the delay and the same is condoned. The Revision Petition be treated as having been filed within limitation.

(2.) The present Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 07-01-2019 passed by the Circuit Bench of the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redresal Commission, Circuit Bench at Madurai (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) whereby the State Commission has declined to condone the delay of 3561 days in filing the Appeal and, consequently, the Appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation.

(3.) We have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and perused the impugned order. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner was not aware about the order passed by the District Forum and, therefore, could not file the Appeal within time and a delay of 3561 days has occurred. He further submitted that the Counsel who conducted the case before the District Forum did not inform about the order passed by the District Forum and, therefore, the Appeal was not filed in time. According to him, the delay of 3561 days in filing the Appeal had satisfactorily been explained and the State Commission ought to have taken a lenient view and condone the delay.