PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER

          This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 22.04.2013 passed by the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. 2481 of 2002 – Kanpur Development Authority Vs. Smt. Ramsiya Gupta by which, appeal was dismissed.

2.      Brief facts of the case are that learned District Forum allowed complaint and directed OP/petitioner to remove deficiencies in the house and hand over possession of the house and pay interest @ 12% p.a. on Rs.27,889/- from 18.1.1993 till handing over of possession and further allowed compensation of Rs.10,000/- and cost of Rs.500/-.  Petitioner filed appeal before State Commission and learned State Commission vide impugned order dismissed appeal, as none appeared before the learned State Commission on behalf of both the parties against which, this revision petition has been filed along with application for condonation of delay of 73 days.

3.      Heard learned counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.

4.      As far condonation of delay is concerned, petitioner submitted that State Commission dismissed appeal in absence of the petitioner on 22.4.2013 and copy of the order was received on 22.5.2013.  It was further submitted that petitioner’s Advocate was entrusted to file revision petition, but in shifting of office file misplaced and delay occurred in filing revision petition, which may be condoned.  Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that delay was unintentional and occurred due to misplacement of file; hence, delay may be condoned.  Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that as there is no reasonable explanation for condonation of delay, application may be dismissed.

5.      No doubt, there is delay of 73 days in filing revision petition, but as order of the State Commission was ex-parte and file was misplaced in the office of the Counsel for the petitioner, I deem it proper to condone the delay subject to cost.  Consequently, application for condonation of delay is allowed subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- as cost to respondent.

6.      As far merits of the case is concerned, perusal of impugned order reveals that parties were not present before State Commission and appeal was dismissed mentioning the fact that order of District Forum is correct without dealing any ground of memo of appeal.

7.      Hon’ble Apex Court in (2001) 10 SCC 659 – HVPNL Vs. Mahavir observed as under:

“1.In a number of cases coming up in appeal in this Court, we find that the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana at Chandigarh is passing a standard order in the following terms:

‘We have heard the Law Officer of HVPN – appellant and have also perused the impugned order.  We do not find any legal infirmity in the detailed and well-reasoned order passed by District Forum, Kaithal. Accordingly, we uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal’.

2. We may point out that while dealing with a first appeal, this is not the way to dispose of the matter.  The appellate forum is bound to refer to the pleadings of the case, the submissions of the counsel, necessary points for consideration, discuss the evidence and dispose of the matter by giving valid reasons.  It is very easy to dispose of any appeal in this fashion and the higher courts would not know whether learned State Commission had applied its mind to the case. We hope that such orders will not be passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana at Chandigarh in future. A copy of this order may be communicated to the Commission”.

8.      Learned State Commission either should have dismissed appeal in default or should have decided appeal on merits after considering all the grounds raised in memo of appeal.  As the learned State Commission has not dealt with any ground of memo of appeal in the impugned order, I deem it proper to remand the matter back to the learned State Commission for disposal by speaking order after dealing with all the contentions and arguments raised by the petitioner.

9.      Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 22.04.2013 passed by the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. 2481 of 2002 – Kanpur Development Authority Vs. Smt. Ramsiya Gupta is set aside and matter is remanded back to the learned State Commission for deciding it by speaking order after giving an opportunity of being heard to the parties.

10.    Parties are directed to appear before the learned State Commission on 7.10.2014.  A copy of this order may be sent to the U.P. State Commission, Lucknow.