HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT PETITION No. 14954 OF 2014 BETWEEN J.P. Rao Date: 03-06-2014 …Petitioner And The Registrar, A.P State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad and two others …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT PETITION No. 14954 OF 2014 ORDER: ( per the Hon'ble Sri Justice Ashutosh Mohunta) This writ petition is filed impugning the order dated 27-03-2014 passed in FA IA No. 36 of 2014 in FASR No.118 of 2014 by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short ‘the State Commission’).
The petitioner is stated to have filed a complaint in CC No. 655 of 2011 before the District Forum – III, Hyderabad to direct the 4th respondent herein to roll back the rate of interest from 29% per annum to 12% per annum with yearly rest on all gold loans taken by him; to pay Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony suffered by him; to award costs of Rs.5,000/- and to direct the Reserve Bank of India to cancel the licence of the 4th respondent. The District Forum after hearing both sides allowed the complaint directing the 4th respondent to pay Rs.5,000 towards compensation and a further sum of Rs.2,000/- towards costs to the petitioner. Being dissatisfied with the same, the petitioner approached the State Commission by filing FA (SR) No. 118 of 2014 and since there is a delay of 15 days, he filed FAIA No.36 of 2014 for condonation of the delay stating that the delay occurred due to preoccupation in his profession. The State Commission having observed that the petitioner stated in casual and mechanical manner that there is a delay of 15 days in filing the appeal and has not mentioned as to how the delay had occurred, however taking a sympathetic consideration, the State Commission condoned the delay subject to the petitioner paying an amount of Rs.500/- towards costs. The petitioner instead of paying costs as ordered by the State Commission requested to exonerate him from paying the costs. The Tribunal relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajeev Hitendra Pathan vs. Achyut Kashinath Karekar (Civil Appeal No. 4307 of 2007) held that it has no power to set aside the ex parte orders or review its orders and accordingly dismissed the petition. Hence the writ petition.
Heard the petitioner in person and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for the 1st respondent.
As observed by the State Commission, the petitioner has not satisfactorily explained the day to day delay and on the other hand, he has simply stated that due to preoccupation in his profession, the delay has occurred. The State Commission instead of dismissing the petition took a sympathetic view exercising its discretion and condoned the delay subject to payment of costs of Rs.500/-. The petitioner instead of paying costs as ordered supra requested the State Commission to exonerate him from paying costs. In view of the ratio laid down in Rajeev Hitendra Pathan’s case since the State Commission has no power to review its order, the State Commission rightly dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner to condone the delay. We see no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the State Commission.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, miscellaneous petition, if any, pending consideration shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J 03-06-2014 ks