National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Essel Finance V.K.C. Forex Ltd. vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. on 2 February, 2017
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 180 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 14/01/2015 in Appeal No. 574/2010 of the State Commission Tamil Nadu) 1. ESSEL FINANCE V.K.C. FOREX LTD. FORMERLY KNOWN AS V.K.C CREDIT AND FOREX SERVICES (P) LTD.,REGIONAL MANAGER OFFICE AT NO. 6 & 7, 1ST FLOOR INDIRA PALACE, H-BLOCK MIDDLE CIRCLE, CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI-110001 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. THROUGH DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, 10TH FLOOR, CORE I, SCOPE MINAR, LAXMI NAGAR DISTRICT CENTRE NEW DELHI-110092 ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr. K.S. Pathania & Mr. Abadh Kishor Singh,
Advocates For the Respondent :
Dated : 02 Feb 2017 ORDER
PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER
This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 14.1.2015 passed by the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (in short, 'the State Commission') in Appeal No. 574 of 2010 by which, appeal was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner filed complaint before District Forum against OP/respondent and claimed Rs. 8,65,000/-. Learned District Forum dismissed complaint. Appeal filed by complainant was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed along with application for condonation of delay.
3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner on application for condonation of delay and perused record.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that delay occurred under wrong assumption that there is two years limitation in filing revision petition; hence, delay be condoned.
5. As per office report, there is delay of 624 days in filing revision petition. Paragraphs 4, 5 & 6 of application for condonation of delay runs as under:
"4. That on 22nd February, 2015, the petitioner came to know about the impugned order dated 14.1.2015 for the first time.
5. That thereafter copy of the impugned order was forwarded to the legal advisor of the petitioner Company for further action. After about two months the legal advisor advised the Company to approach the National Commission against the order of the State Commission dated 14.1.2015 and further advised that period for approaching the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission is 2 years and the company till January 2017 can approach the National Commission.
6. That thereafter in November 2016 the petitioner sent copies of the State Commission order and District Forum order with copies of pleadings proof affidavit of complainant to their Lawyers at Delhi. The lawyers at Delhi in the first week of November informed that there is delay of about one year and 165 days in the filing of revision petition to which the petitioner responded by saying that they have been advised that there is time till January 2017 to approach the Hon'ble National Commission against the order of State Commission. It is submitted that the legal advisor of the petitioner/complainant read Section 19 and then Section 21 where no limitation is provided for filing of revision before National Commission and on the basis of Section 24A which provides for limitation of 2 years advised the petitioner that there is time till January 2017 to file the revision petition without realizing that the said section is talking about only original complaints".
when petitioner came to know about impugned order on 22.2.2015, he should not have waited for approaching this Commission on the wrong assumption that there is limitation of 2 years for filing revision petition whereas only 90 days period is available for filing revision petition. Not only this, when in first week of November Counsel at Delhi apprised petitioner that there was delay of one year and 165 days in filing revision petition; even then, revision petition has been filed on 19.1.2017 and no explanation except that time was taken in collecting documents has been given in the application for condonation of delay which is not acceptable.
6. As there is no reasonable explanation for condonation of inordinate delay of 624 days in filing revision petition, application for condonation of delay is liable to be dismissed in the light of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in (1) (2010) 5 SCC 459 - Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and Anr.; (2) (2012) 3 SCC 563 - Office of The Chief Post Master General and Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. and Anr. and (3) 2012 (2) CPC 3 (SC) - Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority.
7. Thus it becomes clear that there is no reasonable explanation at all for condonation of inordinate delay of 624 days. In such circumstances, application for condonation of delay is dismissed. As application for condonation of delay has been dismissed, revision petition being barred by limitation is also liable to be dismissed.
8. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed as barred by limitation with no order as to costs.
......................J K.S. CHAUDHARI PRESIDING MEMBER