- This revision petition has been filed under section 58(1)(b) of The Consumer Protection Act 2019 in challenge to the Order dated 20.09.2022 passed in CMP No.57 of 2022 in F.A. Sr. No.120 of 2020 by the State Commission arising out of the Order dated 21.12.2017 of the District Commission in complaint no. 330 of 2007.
- It appears that the District Commission had passed the Order on 21.12.2017. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioners / opposite parties had filed an appeal before the State Commission on 27.01.2020 with a huge delay. As such the delay application being CMP No. 57 of 2022 was filed along with the said appeal. It appears that in the delay condonation application being CMP No. 57 of 2022, the petitioner / appellant did not appear before the State Commission and as such the following Order dated 20.09.2022 was passed which reads as thus:
This petition having come up before us on 20.09.2022 for appearance of the petitioner and for filing Courter of the Respondents 1 & 2 or for dismissal and this commission made the following:- Docket order No representation for both. This appeal is posted today for appearance of the petitioner / appellant and for filing counter of Respondents 1 & 2 or for dismissal. There was no representation for the petitioner / appellant continuously for the past several hearings. Today, when the matter was called at 10.30 A.M., the Petitioner / Appellant was not present hence, passed over and called again at 01. 00 P.M. still, there is no representation for the Petitioner / Appellant. Hence, we are of the view that keeping the appeal pending is of no use as the Petitioner / Appellant is not interested in prosecuting the case. Hence CMP No. 57/2022 is dismissed, consequently, the F.A. Sr. No. 120/ 2020 is rejected. 3. The present revision petition has been filed against the impugned Order dated 20.09.2022 passed by the State Commission. For better appreciation, another consequential impugned Order dated 20.09.2022 may be quoted herein below: This F.A. Sr. is filed by the Appellants / Opposite Parties 1 to 3 to set aside the Order dt. 21.12.2017 in C.C. No. 330/2007 on the file of D.C.D.R.C., Chennai (South) and this Commission made the following in Open Court:- Docket Order In view of the order passed in CMP No.57/2022, this F.A. Sr. is rejected. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record including inter alia the Order dated 20.09.2022 passed in CMP No. 57/2022, impugned Order dated 20.09.2022 passed in F.A. Sr. No. 120 of 2020 by the State Commission and the Order dated 21.12.2017 passed by the District Commission and the memo of petition. 5. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that as the petitioners did not get the opportunity to present their case on merits and could not press forth the delay condonation application and the same was dismissed in default and, therefore, an opportunity should further be provided to argue its case on merits. 6. The perusal of the impugned Order shows that it has been noted by the State Commission that the petitioners / appellants remained unrepresented for several hearings. On the last date fixed before the State Commission, the forum below waited for many hours but none appeared on behalf of the petitioners / appellants. When the appeal was itself filed after more than two years and still the delay condonation application was not being earnestly perused, the State Commission was constrained to pass the impugned Order. In the conspicuous facts and circumstances of the case where no plausible or credible explanation for the non-appearance of the petitioners / appellants is coming-forth and where it is found that the non-appearance of the petitioners / appellants before the State Commission was only because of lackadaisical attitude on the part of the petitioners or its representative, it is difficult to find out any fault in the impugned Order. Ordinarily, the Bench could have taken a liberal view in the matter but there must be at least a semblance of explanation for the non-appearance on behalf of the petitioners / appellants before the State Commission. But the same is not coming-forth at all. 7. When the appeal was filed in the State Commission more than two years after passing of the District Commission’s Order and the delay condonation application was moved, the same ought to have been pursued diligently in a right earnest. The Bench does not see any material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned Order and also does not see any element of perversity which may vitiate the impugned Order. As such, the Bench does not see any good ground to interfere in the impugned Order and so the present revision petition stands dismissed as such. 8. The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties in the petition and to their learned counsel as well as to the fora below within three days. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission within three days. | 
