JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.      Learned counsel for the parties are present.  First appeal was dismissed in default on 25.4.2012 by the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow, a bench  presided over by Shri Ram Pal Singh, Presiding Member and Shri Jugal Kishore, Member of the State Commission.  They have invented a novel method of dismissing the appeal in default by uploading the cause list on the website of Commission.  This practice is available in the Hon’ble Supreme Court but before the lower court, the law laid down in the Act is to be followed and there is no amendment in the Act.  This is the wrong way to show adequate disposal by dismissing the cases like this.  The State Commission should not adopt this procedure in future and it should not proceed further without issuing notices to the parties.  Learned counsel for the parties also pointed out that Chairman of the Commission, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh has directed them not to pass such orders but they are still doing the same. 

2.      It is also interesting to note that first appeal was dismissed in default on 25.4.2012.  Thereafter, an application for restoration was moved on 24.1.2013.  No action was taken by the petitioner to move the application immediately.  They waited for about 8 months.  Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, as a matter of fact, execution notice was received by the petitioner on 24.11.2011.  Thereafter, he applied for certified copy, which was made available on 26.12.2012 and the application was moved on 24.1.2013.

3.      All these arguments urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner are bereft of merits.  The application for condonation of delay was not filed immediately.  After one month, the petitioner has moved an application for condonation of delay.  He has explained the delay in paras 4 and 5 of the application which are reproduced as under:-

“4.That it is respectfully submitted that upon receipt of the summons of the execution case No. 20/2008 on 24-11-2012 from the District Forum, Bareilly by the revisionist revealed that some Order in Revisionist Appeal has been passed and thereafter inspection of the appeal file before the State Commission was carried out by the Revisionist counsel on 26-12-2012 in pursuance to the application dated 24-12-2012 and got the certified copy on 26-12-2012 of the impugned order dated 25-4-2012 of dismissal of appeal in default and prior to the same revisionist had no information or knowledge about dismissal of appeal in default nor even as such received any copy of the said Order from the Hon’ble State Commission, hence in view of the foregoing procured the certified copy of said Order on 26-12-2012.

“5. That it is relevant to state that it was incumbent upon the office of the Hon’ble State Commission to have communicated free of charge the copy of the said impugned Order to the Revisionist which was not done by the State Commission, hence Revisionist could not have any information of passing of said order till on 26-12-2012 when procured the certified copy of the said impugned order as aforesaid in the preceding paragraph.  In this regard it is relevant to quote relevant provision of law as enshrined in Rule 7(10) and Rule 8(9) of the U.P. Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 which are reproduced as under:

Rule 7(10)-  Orders of the State Commission shall be signed and dated by the members of the State Commission constituting the Bench and shall be communicated to the parties free of charge.

Rule 8(9) – The order of the State Commission on appeal shall be signed and dated by the members of the State Commission constituting the Bench and shall be communicated to the parties free of charge.”

4.      We have also seen the certified copy of the order issued to the petitioner.  It appears that the review application was submitted on 24.1.2013 meaning thereby that the application was moved after two months from the date of knowledge.  It is also surprising to note that the U. P. Registry does not know how to prepare the certified copies.  It was not mentioned when the free copy was given to the petitioner.  Explanation of Registrar be called and he be asked to inform the court when free copy was furnished to the parties. 

5.      It is also surprising to note that Supreme Court has held in August, 2011 that no review petition lies with the State Commission, yet, the application was moved before the State Commission to gain time.  The application was moved on 24.1.2013 i.e. after more than a year.   The State Commission should have dismissed the application immediately.  It should not have been entertained at all.  The purpose of the petitioner is to delay the case unnecessarily.  The appeal is pending before the State Commission since 2008.  However, in the interest of justice, we condone the delay subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- which be paid to the respondent/consumer in his name through demand draft before the next date of hearing before the State Commission.  The State Commission will find out whether the said costs have been paid to the respondent and thereafter, will decide the case on merits.  The parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 13.5.2013.  The State Commission is directed to expedite the case and it should come to an end before the expiry of August, 2013.  The directions be complied with strictly.