Per – Hon’ble Mr. S. R. Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member
Heard Adv. S. K. Tiwari on behalf of the Revisionist/original Opponent. Perused the record.
[2] Revisionist/original Opponent has filed this revision petition challenging the order dated 13/12/2011 passed by the Mumbai Suburban District Forum (hereinafter referred to as ‘the District Forum’ for the sake of brevity) in Consumer Complaint No.164 of 2011, Gurmeet Singh Dang Vs. Tirupati Constructions. Initially the Revisionist mentioned two orders are under challenge viz. order dated 13/12/2011 and order dated 28/6/2012. However, the Revisionist elected to press this revision petition only as against the order dated 13/12/2011. There is a delay in filing this revision petition and, therefore, to seek condonation of delay in filing this revision petition, the Revisionist has filed Miscellaneous Application No.303 of 2012.
[3] In the instant case what we find is that the order dated 13/12/2011 which is drafted in the format of Daily Order refers to only one thing viz. on that date on receiving service affidavit as contemplated under Section 28-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and considering the postal acknowledgement receipt received back, the District Forum observed that the Revisionist/Opponent since absent, complaint should proceed ex-parte against the Opponent and further directed, presumably under Section-13(2)(b)(ii) read with Section-13(4) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to lead evidence on affidavit and the matter was adjourned to 24/1/2012. Since the service of notice to the Revisionist/Opponent was held to be good and since the Revisionist/Opponent remained absent, the course of action adopted by the District Forum cannot be faulted with and, therefore, per-se it is not a case even if the order-sheet dated 13/12/2011 is taken as an order, to invoke revisional jurisdiction of this Commission under Section-17(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
[4] Since the revision itself is found to be devoid of any merit, we find that to entertain an application for condonation of delay would be a futile exercise. If the revision is entertained it would result into protraction of consumer dispute. Under the circumstances, Miscellaneous Application No.303 of 2012 seeking condonation of delay in filing Revision Petition No.72 of 2012 stands dismissed and simultaneously revision petition is also not entertained. No order as to costs. Order accordingly.
Pronounced and dictated on 30th August, 2012
