This Revision Petition is directed against the order of the State Commission dated 03.01.2019 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of the District Forum dated 13.09.2013 was

-2-

dismissed as barred by limitation, there being delay of as much as 1082 days in filing the said appeal. 

2.      The application which the petitioner had filed before the State Commission seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, to the extent it is relevant, reads as under:

          That the order in the Complaint filed by the Respndent/complainant was passed by the Ld. Forum on 13.09.2013 Ex-parte.  It is submitted that the appellant/OP was not served in the proceedings at any point of time and has been wrongly proceeded against Ex-parte and thereafter condemned unheard on the basis of false and inadmissible reports.  The order thus violates the very basis principle of Natural Justice as the appellant/OP has been denied the opportunity of being heard in the matter.  A perusal of the record of the complaint would reveal that a juristic person has not been sued through any natural person and the proceedings thus have been wrongly proceeded with and decided in favour of the respondent/complainant.  So much so that the appellant/OP did not even receive the certified copy of order which is to be mandatorily sent to the parties as per the provisions of Act.  The appellant/OP at no point of time was aware of these proceedings till 26.09.2016 when he was apprised by an acquainted revenue official that his property had been attached at the direction of the Learned Consumer Forum in some case pending before it.  It is thereafter that the appellant/OP made inquiries and acme to know on 28.9.2016 of the complaint having been filed by the complainant and thereafter having been decided

-3-

in his favour Ex-parte.  Thereafter the entire record of the case was applied for on 29.9.2016 and immediately the present appeal was got drafted.  In case the limitation is taken from the date of knowledge or order dated 13.9.2013 on 28.9.2016, the present appeal is within limitation.  But in case the same is to be computed from the date of decision on 13.9.2013 there is a delay of about 3 years and 15 days in filing of the same.

3.      It would thus be seen that the specific case of the petitioner was that he was not at all aware of the proceedings instituted by the complainant till 26.09.2019 when he came to know about the attachment of his property on the directions of the District Forum. 

4.      A perusal of the impugned order would show that the State Commission examined the Post Man who had served the notice upon the petitioner.  The Post Man testified that the notice duly addressed to the petitioner, was tendered to him and was refused by him.  The State Commission also obtained a report from the District Forum which showed that a copy of the final order passed by the District Forum in the Consumer Complaint on 13.09.2013 was sent to the petitioner by Registered Post and the copy sent by Registered Post was not received back.  The State Commission rightly held that since the Registered letter containing the copy of the final order of the District Forum by Registered Post had not been received back, there was a statutory presumption of

-4-

service of the notice upon the petitioner.  It is therefore, evident that not only the petitioner was duly served with the notice of the Consumer Complaint when he refused to accept the notice tendered by the Post Master but he also received a copy of the final order passed by the State Commission, sometime by the end of October 2013, the said order having been sent to him by Registered Post on 28.10.2013.  Thus, an absolutely false plea has been taken in the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, when the petitioner claimed that he was not aware of the order of the District Forum till 26.09.2013. 

5.      In these circumstances, the view taken by the State Commission declining to condone the delay of as much as three years in filing the appeal cannot be faulted with and therefore, does not all for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.  The Revision Petition, being devoid of any merits, is hereby dismissed.