JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

          The petitioner filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Madurai against the Federal Bank Ltd. and one of its Branch Manager.  The said complaint was dismissed by the District Forum vide its order dated 24.09.2010.  Being aggrieved from dismissal of his complaint, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Tamilnadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madurai Bench.  The said appeal was not presented in person but was sent by post on 17.11.2000.  The appeal reached the State Commission on 24.11.2000.  On scrutiny, certain defects were found in the appeal and therefore it was returned for rectification on 29.11.2000.  However, the petitioner did not bother to inquire about the fate of his appeal for about 2 years and 8 months.  It was only on 20.07.2013 that he sent a letter to the State Commission, inquiring about the status of the appeal, which he had sent by post.  The State Commission informed him on 14.08.2013 that the appeal had been returned on 29.11.2010, for rectification.  The papers were thereafter collected by the petitioner from the State Commission on 30.08.2013 and re-presented on 03.10.2013.  The only reason given by the petitioner/complainant for the delay in re-presentation of the appeal was his being engaged in the marriage function of his niece.

2.      The State Commission, vide its order dated 12.06.2014, held that the delay in representation of the appeal was not justified and accordingly dismissed the petition seeking condonation of delay in refiling the appeal.  Being aggrieved, the complainant is before us by way of this revision petition.

3.      The learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 07.02.2004, passed in Civil Appeal No. 7582 of 2012, OPG Power Generation P. Ltd. vs. T. Nadu Elect. Board & Ors.  A perusal of the aforesaid order would show that in the case before Hon’ble Supreme Court, the appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal of Electricity solely on account of there being the delay of 165 days in refiling of the appeal.  Allowing the appeal, the Hon’ble Apex Court, inter-alia, held as under:-

  “It needs to be clarified that a time may be prescribed by the Tribunal or a Court of Law on the administrative side in order to curb the delay in refilling of the appeal and the counsel may be under administrative instruction to refile the appeal or a petition after curing the defects expeditiously.  But that cannot be construed or given effect to as an order having statutory force so as to dismiss the appeal or a petition itself on the ground of delay.  A petition or an appeal may be dismissed on the ground of delay provided the same violates the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963”.

4.      It would thus be seen that the Hon’ble Supreme Court while allowing the appeal in the matter pending before it took the view that if the time limit for removing the defects in refiling the appeal is prescribed by way of any administrative order, the delay in refiling could not be made a ground for dismissing the appeal.  The Hon’ble Apex Court was of the view that such an administrative order does not have a statutory force so as to dismiss an appeal or a petition itself on the ground of delay.  However, as far as the appeals before the consumer fora are concerned, the matter is governed by Regulation 9 of the Consumer Protection Regulations 2005, which National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has framed with the previous approval of the Central Government, in exercise of the power conferred upon by Section 30 (A) of the Consumer Protection Act.  The said regulation, to the extent it is relevant reads as under:-

“(2) If there is any defect in the filing of the complaint, appeal or revision petition, the particulars of such defects shall be recorded and the party or his agents shall be informed of the defects asking them for removing the defects within 15 days.

(4) After the expiry of the time given, the matter shall, irrespective of the fact as to whether the defects have been removed or not, be placed before the Consumer Forum for appropriate orders.

(5) If the objections raised by the Registrar are substantial and are not removed within the time allowed for the purpose, those days shall not be excluded for counting the period of limitation.

(7) In case any defect is pointed out by the Registrar, twenty-one days from the date on which such defect was removed shall be reckoned for the purpose of sub-regulation (5)”.

5.      Since the above referred regulation has statutory force having been framed by this Commission in exercise of the power conferred upon by Section 30 (A) of the Act, the same can not be equated with an administrative rule which a tribunal may frame, acting on its administrative side.  Since the order relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner refers to an administrative rule framed by a tribunal and the Hon’ble Supreme Court specifically observed that the administrative rule can not be construed or given effect to as the order having statutory force, whereas the regulations which apply to an appeal filed before the State Commission are statutory regulation having force of law, the aforesaid decision, in our view would not apply to the present case.

6.      The provisions contained in Regulation 9 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005 apply to all complaints, appeals, petitions etc. irrespective of whether they are filed by a consumer or by an opposite party.  If we accept the contention that a person can remove the defects pointed out by the Registry at any time of his choice, without there being any outer time limit for removal of such defects, that may lead to a situation where an unscrupulous litigant may drag a consumer to a consumer fora by way of an appeal/revision etc., years and years after an order in favour of the consumer is passed.  Similarly, an unscrupulous complaint, having no merit in his case, may also drag the opposite party to yet another round of litigation, at any time of his choice by first filing a defective appeal/revision and then not removing the defects identified by the Registry, for years together.  It was to curb such possible misuse that this Commission has made regulation prescribing an outer limit for the removal of the objections.  In view of Sub regulations(s) of Regulations the time taken beyond the prescribed time limit, in removing the objections cannot be excluded for the purpose of limitation.

7.      Coming to the merits, the only reason given by the petitioner for the abnormal delay of about 2 years and 8 months for removing the defects was that he remained busy in connection with the wedding of his niece.  We fail to appreciate how a person could remain busy in connection with the wedding of his niece for as much as 2 years and 8 months at a stretch.  The ground given by the petitioner for explaining the delay in refiling the appeal, therefore, can not be accepted.

8.       For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, we find no good reason to interfere with the orders passed by the State Commission.  The revision petition is therefore dismissed.