Taken up through video conferencing.

1.       This petition has been filed under section 58(1)(b) of The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (the ‘Act 2019’) in challenge to the Order dated 03.12.2019 of The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kerala (the ‘State Commission’) in appeal no. 585 of 2016 arising out of the Order dated 30.04.2016 of The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Idukki (the ‘District Commission’) in complaint no. 435 of 2014.

2.       Heard the learned counsel on admission. Perused the material on record, including the Order dated 30.04.2016 of the District Commission, the impugned Order dated 03.12.2019 of the State Commission and the petition.

3.       To recap the chronology, the complaint was filed on 23.12.2014, it was allowed on contest by the District Commission on 30.04.2016, appeal preferred by the opposite parties (the petitioners herein) was dismissed for non-prosecution by the State Commission on 03.12.2019, the instant revision was filed before this Commission on 27.09.2021.

4.       The petition has been filed with reported delay of 473 days.

In the interest of justice, to provide fair opportunity to the petitioners, as also considering the COVID-19 situation, the delay in filing the petition is condoned.

5.       The impugned Order dated 03.12.2019 of the State Commission is reproduced below:

No representation for the appellant. Respondent represented through counsel. We notice that there has been no representation for the appellant consistently from 28-11-2018 onwards. In spite of the above, we had been granting time. We have granted more than one year’s time to the appellant. It is clear that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting this appeal. In view of the above this appeal is dismissed for non prosecution.

Evidently, there was no representation for the appellants on the said date (03.12.2019), the respondent was represented through counsel, there had been no representation for the appellants from 28.11.2018 onwards, the State Commission had been granting time for more than one year to the appellants, in such facts and circumstances the State Commission observed that it was clear that the appellants were not interested in prosecuting their appeal and dismissed the same for non-prosecution.

6.       The ‘confonet case history’ filed by the petitioners with their petition shows that the appeal was admitted, notice ordered to be issued and record of the lower forum summoned on 03.10.2016; stay on the operation of the order of the District Commission was granted on 13.03.2017; the appellants continuously absented themselves before the State Commission from 28-11-2018 onwards, including on 03.12.2019 when the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.

It also bears significance that, as provided in Section 52 of the Act 2019, the ideal normative period for disposing of an appeal is 90 days of its admission.

7.       Learned counsel draws our attention to an affidavit dated 20.01.2021 filed by Mr. S. Sunil, the counsel for the appellants before the State Commission.

Para 2 of the said affidavit is reproduced below for perusal:

2.         The above appeal was posted on 03-12-2019 and due to the default of non-appearance of the appellants this Honorable Commission was pleased to dismiss the appeal on the same day for default of non-appearance of appellants. It is most humbly submitted that I had entrusted the appeal to another Counsel Sm.t Vaheeda to follow up with the day to day proceedings but unfortunately that counsel was not able to attend or appear before the Hon’ble Commission and hence the non-appearance of the appellants as not aware to me. There is no willful negligence or laches on my part or of the appellants in not representing the case before this Hon. Commission.

We are refraining from commenting on the counsel. Sufficient is to say that the appellants were not dutiful in prosecuting their appeal with the due diligence. This affidavit does not support their case for restoration.

8.       We see no reasonable or persuasive ground to interfere with the impugned Order of the State Commission. We may add that in a case where the cause arose in 2012, and the dispute was brought to the consumer protection fora in 2014, if an appeal, which has been dismissed as a clear case of non-prosecution for cogent reasons recorded, is restored on unreasonable and unpersuasive grounds, the very procrastination in the final decision of the complaint by itself may defeat the cause of justice, be unjust and non-conscionable.

9.       The revision petition no. 734 of 2021 is dismissed.

The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to all parties in the petition immediately. The stenographer is also requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.