National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Director, Versentile Plantation ... vs Sant Ram Agrahari & Anr. on 24 May, 2016
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 337 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 05/12/2014 in Appeal No. 581/2010 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh) 1. DIRECTOR, VERSENTILE PLANTATION LIMITED ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. SANT RAM AGRAHARI & ANR. ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. REKHA GUPTA, MEMBER For the Petitioner : MR. ABHISHEK SINGH For the Respondent : Mr. Ritesh Khare, Advocate along with Respondent No.1 in person Dated : 24 May 2016 ORDER This revision is directed against the order dated 05.12.2014 of the State Commission, Uttar Pradesh in Appeal No.581 of 2010, whereby the State Commission dismissed the application of the Petitioner/Opposite Party for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal and as a consequence thereof dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order of the State Commission amounts to review of the earlier order of the State Commission dated 20.10.2011 vide which the State Commission had allowed the application of the petitioner and condoned the delay in filing of the appeal. It is argued that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Rajeev Hitendra Pathak & Ors. Vs. Achyut Kashinath Karkar & Anr. 2011 (9) SCC 541, the State Commission has no power to review its own order. Therefore, the impugned order being without jurisdiction is liable to be set aside.
3. Learned Shri Ritesh Khare, Advocate for the respondent on instructions has conceded that as the delay in filing of the appeal was already condoned vide proceedings dated 20.10.2011, impugned order of the State Commission has been passed in violation of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Rajeev Hitendra Pathak & Ors. (supra) and is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel has contended that respondent has no objection if the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the State Commission for disposal of appeal on merits. Learned counsel has requested that disposal of appeal may be made time bound.
4. We have considered the rival contentions. On perusal of record, we find that delay in filing of appeal was condoned by the State Commission vide order dated 20.10.2011. Therefore, subsequent dismissal of the application of condonation of delay as also the dismissal of appeal on the point of limitation amounts to review of its own order by the State Commission which is not permissible in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Rajeev Hitendra Pathak & Ors. (supra). The impugned order being without jurisdiction cannot be sustained. We accordingly allow the revision petition, set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the State Commission for disposal of appeal on merits. In the instant case, the consumer complaint was filed in the year 2008. Looking into the considerable delay already caused, we request the State Commission to decide the appeal within three months.
5. The parties to appear before the State Commission on 05.07.2016.
6. The revision petition is accordingly disposed of.
......................J AJIT BHARIHOKE PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... REKHA GUPTA MEMBER