Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/862/2019

Dr. Rahul Gupta c/o Sir Padampat Mother and Child Health Institute - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chetiram Meena s/o Ram Prasad Meena - Opp.Party(s)

Naman Maheshwari

23 Sep 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 862 /2019

 

Dr.Rahul Gupta c/o Sir Padampat Mother and Child Health Institute, JK Loan Hospital, SMS Hospital, Jaipur.

Vs.

Chetiram Meena s/o Ram Prasad Meena r/o village bamanwas Pattikala Tehsil Bamanwas Distt. Sawaimadhopur & ors.

 

Date of Order 23.9.2019

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Hon'ble Mrs.Meena Mehta -Member

 

Mr. Naman Maheshwari counsel for the appellant

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

The appeal is filed against the order passed by the

2

 

District Forum, Jaipur 4^th dated 6.2.2019 whereby the claim is allowed against the appellant. The matter has come upon the application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act as the appeal has been filed with delay of 173 days.

 

The contention of the appellant is that earlier he filed a revision petition hence, the delay be condoned.

 

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act as well as the final order passed by the Forum below.

 

This is not in dispute that impugned order was passed on 6.2.2019. The proceedings were ex-parte against the present appellant. The contention of the appellant is that he could know about the impugned order only on 9.5.2019 and further the contention of the appellant is that earlier revision petition was filed within time but the record of the revision petition no. 39/2019 Dr.Rahul Gupta Vs. Chetiram Meena shows that revision petition was also filed with delay of 86 days and further more by order dated 16.8.2019 revision petition was found not maintainable as the final order has been passed

3

 

only appeal was maintainable.

 

Apart from it the registry has also pointed out that revision is not maintainable against the final order and 50% of the decretal amount or Rs. 25,000/- which were is less has also to be deposited but it seems that to bypass this requirement wilfully revision has been filed which was found to be non-maintainable and this order has not been assailed by the appellant and it is final order between the parties.

 

Hence, in view of the above facts it seems that a wilfull delay has been caused by the appellant and reliance could be placed on 2018 NCJ 565 (NC) Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Bewerage Viard Vs. B.R.Padmanaban where the National Commission has held that persuing remedy before wrong Forum is not a sufficient ground for condonation of delay. The National Commission has relied upon the preposition laid down by the Hon'ble apex court in M/s.Advance Scientific Equipment Ltd. Vs. West Bengal Pharma & Photochemical Development Corporation Ltd. ( Civil Appeal No. 17068/2010 decided on 9.7.2010). Here in the present case also the appellant has purposely submitted the

4

revision petition against the final order and it may also be noted that incident is of 2012 and respondent complainant is persuing the remedy since then.

 

Further reliance could be placed on 2018 NCJ 457 (NC) Indian Railways Vs. Ish Sharma where the National Commission has held that since petitioner did not show any seriousness in proceedings the matter expeditiously to ensure that petition is filed expeditiously and such casual and lackadaisical attitude on the part of the appellant is deprecated. Here in the present matter also the appellant has not appeared before the Forum below. Registered notice was sent to him at his correct address. Again after final order revision petition which was not maintainable was filed and unnecessarily matter has been delayed.

 

In view of the above , application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the extraordinary delay of 173 days is dismissed and so also the appeal.

 

(Meena Mehta ) (Nisha Gupta )

Member President

 

nm