1. This appeal is pertaining to 2004 and it was pending in this Commission for last 6-7 years. On 26/07/2011 this appeal was placed before us. On that date, we have directed the office to issue notices to both the parties and accordingly notices were sent to both the parties on 16/08/2011, but both parties are absent. Hence, we decide to dispose of the appeal on perusal of appeal memo and other documents placed on record.
2. This is an appeal filed by org. opponent No.2 against the judgement and award passed on 30/06/2001 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolhapur in consumer complaint No.174/2001. By allowing the complaint of Shri Shrikant Ramchandra Joshirao against the Credit Society/org. opponent No.1 and against the Directors of the said Credit Society including the appellant, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum directed the org. opponent Nos.1to 7 jointly and severally to refund an amount of `1,50,000/- with interest @ 14.5% p.a. from 05/04/2000 till the actual payment and also directed all of them to pay `2,000/- for mental harassment and `500/- towards costs to the complainant. Aggrieved by this order, only opponent No.2/Shri Suresh Ganpatrao Ghatge (Sarkar) has filed this appeal. The impugned order was passed on 30/06/2001 and this appeal came to be filed on 10/02/2004. In the appeal memo at page-4 in Para (D) it has been mentioned by the appellant that the impugned order has been passed on 30/06/2001 and he had received certified copy of the same on 14/07/2011. The appellant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum by filing Review Petition. Said Review Petition was decided on 18/12/2003 and copy thereof was received on 21/12/2003. The appellant had approached the wrong Forum for his grievance. Hence, appellant submitted that appeal filed by him is within the limitation. He also mentioned that if this Commission finds that there is delay in filing appeal, separate delay condonation application for the same is being filed.3. Appellant has filed Misc. Appl. No.290/2004 for condonation of delay and it has been mentioned in the said application that he had filed Review Petition in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum itself after receipt of the judgement and award passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and that Review Petition was finally decided on 18/12/2003 and he had received copy of the same on 21/12/2003 and he filed this appeal on 10/02/2004. Hence, he has sought condonation of delay in filing the appeal belatedly.
4. We are finding that the delay condonation application cannot be allowed for the simple reason that against the judgement and award passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, appeal has been provided under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Instead of filing appeal, the appellant had invoked jurisdiction of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum by filing Review Petition ignoring the fact that District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has no power of review. The Statute had not vested the statutory power of review in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. There was no question of filing Review Petition by the appellant and spending 2-3 precious years in prosecution of the said Review Petition. When the appeal has been provided, the appellant should have filed appeal within 30 days from the date of receipt of the impugned judgement passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. Instead of doing so, he prosecuted the Review Petition which is not even contemplated under any provision of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. So, time spent in prosecuting the Review Petition in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum by the appellant cannot be an excuse and therefore, application for condonation of delay seeking condonation of about 2-3 years is devoid of any substance and on that ground delay application will have to be rejected. Hence, we pass the following order:-
ORDER:-
1. Misc. Application No.290/2004 for condonation of delay stands rejected.
2. Consequently, Appeal No.254/2004 filed by the appellant does not survive for consideration.
3. No order as to costs.
4. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.