APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS For the Petitioner | : | Mr. Aman Leekha, Advocate | For the Respondents | : | Mr. Pawan Kumar Ray, Advocate |
PRONOUNCED ON : 17th MAY 2018 O R D E R PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER These three revision petitions have been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 challenging the impugned order dated 05.07.2013, passed by the Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeals No. 180/2013, 181/2013 and 182/2013, vide which, the said three appeals were ordered to be dismissed on the ground of limitation alone. The said order recorded in Appeal No. 180/2013 reads as under:- “05.07.2013 Heard the learned counsel for appellant on the petition seeking condonation of delay and thereby for admission of this appeal. This appeal is barred for about two months from the date of passing of the order. A petition has been filed by the appellant to condone the delay in filing of the appeal. Having gone through the contents of the petition and grounds stated therein in respect of late filing of the appeal, we do not find that the appellant have been able to justify the delay of about two months on any count and hence, we have not inclined to condone the delay in filing of the appeal. The appeal, thus, stands dismissed at the stage of admission itself. As such, the petition referred to above in respect of condonation of delay is hereby dismissed.” 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner/opposite party (OP) stated that as per orders dated 21.03.2013 in the consumer complaints No. 45/2012, 27/2012 and 34/2012, the said complaints were allowed and the opposite parties were ordered to give compensation to the complainants as detailed in the order. In fact, the said order dated 21.03.2013 had been issued on 12.04.2013 and they had placed documentary evidence on record to prove that the copy of the order had been received by the Advocate for the petitioner on 18.04.2013. The instant appeals had been filed before the State Commission on 27.05.2013. The State Commission had, therefore, erroneously stated in the impugned order that there was delay of two months in filing the appeals before them. Since a time of 30 days is permissible for challenging the orders of the District Forum in appeal, the delay in filing the said appeals could be stated to be just a few days only. Alongwith the appeals, applications for condonation of delay had also been filed and hence, the State Commission should have condoned the delay of about one month in filing the appeals in the interest of justice. 3. In reply, the learned counsel for the respondents stated that the delay in filing the appeals in question had been duly admitted by the petitioners and since there were no sufficient grounds to condone the said delay, the orders passed by the State Commission were in accordance with law. 4. We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us. 5. The facts on record make it very clear that the order of the District Forum is dated 21.03.2013 and appeals against the said order were filed on 27.05.2013. Since a time of 30 days is admissible as per law to challenge the order of the District Forum in appeal, it is, therefore, clear that the delay in filing the appeal was far less than two months and not as stated in the impugned order of the State Commission. 6. It has further been stated in the documents filed by the petitioner that copy of judgment was received by an Advocate on behalf of the petitioner on 18.04.2013. A photocopy of the order placed on record also indicates that the date 11.04.2013 has been put on the front page of the said order. It is made out, therefore, that the order was not issued on 21.03.2013. It is clear from the facts on record, therefore, that counted from the date 12.04.2013 as well, there was a minor delay of just a few days in filing the appeals before the State Commission. The State Commission should have condoned the said delay, rather than taking a very strict view in dismissing the appeals on grounds of limitation. 7. Keeping in view the interest of justice, the instant revision petitions are allowed, the impugned orders passed by the State Commission are set aside and the appeals before the State Commission are restored to their respective original number. The State Commission is directed to call the parties for hearing and then dispose of the appeals on merits in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. | 
