Subodh Kapoor & Anr. ... Petitioners
Vs
Dr. R.R.Sharma & Anr. ... Respondents

Before : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Suhas C.Sen, President, Dr. (Mrs.) R.Thamarajakshi, Member, Mr. S.P.Bagla, Member, 
Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.L.Chaudhry, Member.

SUHAS C.SEN, J.

The first point taken in this Revision Petition is that the order passed by the State Commission is a nullity because it has not been signed by all the Members of the Commission. We have looked into the record. We have also seen the certified copy of the order which has been annexed to the Petition filed before us. We are satisfied that the order was duly signed by all the members on 31-1-1995. In fact, it is also corroborated by the order sheet of the State Commission which was placed before us.

A point was sought to be raised that this case relates to publication of a book. It has been recorded in the order by the State Commission that Dr. R.R.Sharma a former Professor and Head of the Biophysics Department, P.G.I., Chandigarh, published a couple of books known as Molecular Homeopathy and Unified Physical Theory. There were agreements of publication pertaining to royalty etc. dated 8-12-1983 and 27-7-1989 executed by Mr. Subodh Kapoor and Smt. Rani Kapoor the publishers known as Cosmo Publications, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi. However, the publishers failed to make proper payment. The author claimed a sum of Rs. 37,775/- as arrear of royalty and damage to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/-. In spite of service the Publishers did not appear before the District Forum. After recording evidence the District Forum ordered that a sum of Rs. 37,775/- should be paid by the Publisher together with interest at 18% p.a., as regards compensation a nominal sum of Rs. 1,000/- was allowed.

The publisher preferred an appeal which was barred by Limitation. The application for condonation of delay was not allowed by the State Commission. On review of the facts the Appellate Authority declined to condone the delay in presenting the appeal. Condonation of delay is a matter of discretion. There is no reason why we should interfere with the exercise of jurisdiction by the Appellate Authority.

It has been argued that even though the appeal was barred by limitation since the fundamental question of inherent lack of jurisdiction of the Commission was involved, the State Commission should have gone into the validity of the proceedings instituted before the District Forum. The Publisher has failed to prefer an appeal against the Order of the District Forum in time. His plea is that since the order was without jurisdiction he is entitled to come up in appeal whenever he likes. To uphold this contention will amount to nullify the provisions of limitation. Even the question of lack of jurisdiction has to be taken in accordance with law. On behalf of the Appellant our attention was drawn to an earlier Judgment of this Commission in the Case of Tara Ram Vs. Ram Murti Gupta & Anr., Revision Petition No.376 of 1994 decided on 19th January 1995. In that case the complaint of the complainant was that Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation had fixed bus fares from Balotra to Siwana in an arbitrary manner. The District Forum went into the complaint, and held that "henceforth the fare for the distance between Balotra to Siwana be charged at Rs. 5.50 ps for ordinary bus and Rs. 7/- for express bus." The appeal against the decision of the District Forum was dismissed by the State Commission as barred by limitation. On a revision before the National Commission it was held that the question of correctness of exercise of discretion by the State Commission in the matter of condonation of delay could not be reviewed by the National Commission. However, it is pointed out that there was a patent illegal order passed by the District Forum without jurisdiction. The lack of jurisdiction was manifest because fixation of fare for the State carriage vehicle was not a matter falling within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act., 1986.

The Applicant (Petitioner herein) has tried to seek inspiration from this order. We are, however, of the view that there is no manifest jurisdictional error in this case. The contention of the petitioner that the author is not a consumer "within the meaning of Sec.2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act., 1986 does not appear to be prima facie correct in law. It cannot be held that the State Commission has committed a manifest error of law. It cannot be said, prima facie, that the District Forum and the State Commission were in error in deciding this point.

In view of the aforesaid, this Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.