The facts and circumstances of these cases as well as the grounds for filing the aforesaid two revision petitions being similar, the same have been considered together and are being disposed of by this common order.

 

2.         Heard. At the outset, it is noted from the scrutiny sheet put up by the Registry that there is a delay of 123 days in filing each of the two revision petitions before the National Commission. However, according to the petitioners, the delay is of 90 days only. Sole reason of the old age of the mother who eventually expired more than 100 days after the receipt of the certified copy of the impugned order, has been mentioned justifying the delay in filing the petitions. The reason given could hardly be considered as satisfactory considering the relevant dates in these cases and the revision petitions can be dismissed on this ground alone. However, we have looked into the merits as well.

 

3.         These revision petitions have been filed against similar impugned orders passed on 26.04.2010 by the State Commission by which the State Commission has allowed the miscellaneous application of the OP/respondent condoning the delay in filing the appeals before the State Commission and also allowing the appeals by setting aside the ex parte order against the opposite party passed by the District Forum. By the impugned orders, the State Commission has remitted the matter back to the District Forum with a direction to give only one and last opportunity to the OP and then to settle the dispute according to law. We have gone through the impugned order. It is mentioned in the order that there is considerable delay of 354 days in filing the appeal but considering the substantial question of law relating to jurisdiction being involved about the tenability of the consumer complaint itself, namely, as to whether investment in business which certainly distinguished it from the deposit, can be treated as consumer dispute, the delay has been condoned and the order of the District Forum set aside and the matter remitted back to the District Forum for deciding the same on merit by giving one opportunity to the opposite parties/respondents. We do not find any infirmity with this order while exercising our revisional jurisdiction. The impugned order is based on sound reasoning and hence no interference is called for by us. The revision petitions filed, therefore, stands dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. Since the original date of appearance fixed by the State Commission is already over, both the parties are now directed to appear before the District Forum on 07.04.2011.