Supreme Court - Daily Orders
A.T.S. Govindarajane vs Chief Manager,State Bank Of India. on 14 November, 2014
Bench: V. Gopala Gowda, C. Nagappan
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 10289 OF 2014
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.21784 of 2014)
A.T.S. GOVINDARAJANE APPELLANT(S)
Versus
CHIEF MANAGER,STATE BANK OF INDIA. RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
Heard learned counsel for the parties. Leave granted.
The order impugned is challenged by the appellant-complainant as the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by referred to as 'the Commission') dismissed the Vinod Kumar Date: 2014.11.20 16:57:01 IST Reason: revision petition vide its order dated 05.05.2014 solely on the ground that there is delay of 149 days 2 in filing the revision petition, which has not been properly explained. The appellant submitted before the Commission that he will be put to irreparable loss and hardship if the revision petition is not allowed as the order impugned in the petition is an erroneous one. He also submitted that he has lost his vehicle and has no other source of his livelihood. However, the said explanation was not accepted by the Commission for the reason that medical certificate was not produced to the effect that the appellant was taking treatment in the village because he was suffering from severe jaundice and, therefore, he could not file revision petition within the period of limitation. As per the Commission, it was a created story for the purpose of condoning the delay in filing the revision petition. The Commission has placed reliance upon the judgments of this Court and declined to condone the delay by not accepting the explanations given in the application for condonation of delay and consequently dismissed the revision petition as the same was barred by time.
We have perused the impugned order and the orders passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. Having regard to the facts and 3 circumstances of the case, keeping in view the object and intendment of the Act and the evidence adduced before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cuddalore, and further in view of the decisions of this Court in the cases of Manoharan v. Sivarajan & Ors., (2013) 14 SCALE 347 and State of Bihar & Ors. v. Kameshwar Prasad Singh & Anr., (2000) 9 SCC 94, the Commission ought to have entertained the petition accepting the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay by considering the decisions of this Court referred to supra and have examined the merits of the case and disposed of the matter on merits.
In our considered view non-exercise of the discretionary power to condone the delay of 149 days in filing the revision petition against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai render the order impugned erroneous in law. Hence, we set aside the same and condone the delay of 149 days in filing the revision petition and remand the matter to the Commission to reconsider the matter and dispose of the same on merits.
4With the aforesaid observation, we allow this appeal. Parties are directed to appear before the Commission in the first week of December, 2014 or any other date given by the Commission.
................J. (V. GOPALA GOWDA) ..................J. (C. NAGAPPAN) NEW DELHI, NOVEMBER 14, 2014 5 ITEM NO.24 COURT NO.12 SECTION XVII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 21784/2014 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 05/05/2014 in RP No. 2833/2013 passed by the National Consumers Disputes Reddresal Commission, New Delhi) A.T.S. GOVINDARAJANE Petitioner(s) VERSUS CHIEF MANAGER,STATE BANK OF INDIA. Respondent(s) (with interim relief and office report) Date : 14/11/2014 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. GOPALA GOWDA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. NAGAPPAN For Petitioner(s) Mr. S. Mahendran,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. A. V. Rangam,Adv. Mr. Buddy A. Ranganadhan, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
(VINOD KUMAR) (MALA KUMARI SHARMA)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
(Signed order is placed on the file)