National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Bank Of India vs Mahavir Bandu Chougule & 88 Ors. on 9 February, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 159 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 22/10/2008 in Appeal No. 226/2008 of the State Commission Maharastra) 1. BANK OF INDIA ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. MAHAVIR BANDU CHOUGULE & 88 ORS. ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. DR. S.M. KANTIKAR, PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr. Vivek Kumar Tandon, Advocate
Mr. Manish Chauhan, Advocate For the Respondent :
Dated : 09 Feb 2015 ORDER
The Petitioner/Opposite party Bank prefers the present Revision Petition against the order dated 22.10.2008 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra (in short, 'State Commission') in First Appeal No. 226 of 2008. The State Commission allowed the Appeal. The Appeal was filed by the Respondents/complaints against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, (in short, 'District Forum') Kolhapur, Maharashtra dated 31.12.2007 in Consumer Complaint No. 274 of 2007. The District Forum dismissed the Complaint of the Complainants.
There is delay of 2190 days in filing this Revision Petition. The Counsel for the Petitioner Mr. Vivek Kumar Tandon and Mr. Manish Chauhan were present and argued vehemently that, the delay was not intentional, but on merit the case is very good. There is no deficiency committed by the OP Bank, the Insurance Company shall be held liable in this case.
The Counsel for the Petitioner brought my attention to the application for Condonation of delay. The delay is exhaustively explained in in Para 4 to 18 of the application for Condonation of delay. On careful perusal, it appears to be a well built up story to avoid liability and delay the proceedings. The application runs as follows:
1. That the appellant is filing the present application seeking Condonation of delay in filing the accompanying Revision Petition whereby the Petitioner is challenging the order dated 22.10.2008 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra State.
2. It is submitted that after obtaining the order dated 22.10.2008 of the Ld. State Commission the matter was discussed with the advocate who was handling the matter.
3. It is respectfully submitted that after calling for an opinion of the said advocate the matter was referred to the legal cell and thereafter to the higher authority for appropriate decision at appropriate level.
4. It is respectfully submitted that during the discussion in the meeting at the appropriate level it was initially thought to file a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court at Mumbai, later on a decision to file an appeal before the National Commission was taken by the authority.
5. It is respectfully submitted that thereafter vide communication dated 08.07.2010, the matter was referred to Sh. Vivek Kumar Tandon, for preparing and filing of an Appeal before the Hon'ble National Commission.
6. It is respectfully submitted that while perusing the documents noticed that apart from the impugned order and the appeal filed before the Ld. State Commission were only in English otherwise all other documents were in Marathi language, therefore the Counsel vide its letter dated 11.08.2010 asked the petitioner bank to send the translated copy of the documents so that appeal could be prepared.
7. It is respectfully submitted that again on 30.08.2010 the counsel for the Petitioner bank requested the bank to send the documents at the earliest.
8. That the petitioner bank after getting all the documents translated in English sent the same to its counsel vide letter dated 25.11.2010.
9. It is respectfully submitted that after going through all the documents, the counsel vide its letter dated 17.02.2011 asked the petitioner bank to clear some points.
10. It is respectfully submitted that the petitioner bank vide its letter dated 21.04.2011 gave certain clarifications to its counsel. The counsel vide its letter dated 11.05.2011 again requested the petitioner bank to give/provide reason for the delay so that the same may be pleaded by the petitioner bank in its application for condoning the delay to show its bonafide for not filing the petition in time.
11. It is respectfully submitted that in the meantime the officer Mr. V. R. Naik who was handling the matter retired on 21.05.2011, leaving the issue open for the new officer to understand the same again and to give a suitable reply to the query raised by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner bank.
12. It is respectfully submitted that the new officer joined on 25.05.2011 but he also could not lay hand on the file till December 2011. The said officer without knowing the actual position of the case simply asked its counsel about the status of the Revision Petition.
13. It is respectfully submitted that the counsel for the petitioner bank in reply to the aforesaid query clearly stated in its letter dated 15.12.2011 that whatever be the reason of the delay on part of the bank, just let your counsel know about the same. It was further clearly stated by the counsel that our petition is almost ready but the application for condoning the delay is yet to be prepared.
14. It is respectfully submitted that the counsel for the petitioner bank though wrote another letter to the bank on 04.01.2012 thereby again requesting the bank to do the needful so that the petition as desired be filed. The counsel for the bank also sent the draft petition for the bank's perusal and suggestions, if any.
15. As the misfortune never wanted to leave the bank, it is submitted that the said officer also got retire on 31.03.2012, again kept the matter open for the new officer to be done in this regard.
16. It is respectfully submitted that time went on but due to the regular retirements/transfers/leaving of job of the officers the present matter could not be dealt in the way it was supposed to have been dealt.
17. It is respectfully submitted that it was only in August 2014 i.e. on the occasion of cleanliness drive in the branch a file pertaining to the present case was noticed by the Petitioner bank lying in the almirah. To ascertain the status of the matter the bank made query to its counsel.
18. It is respectfully submitted that the counsel for the petitioner bank vide its letter dated 18.08.2014 clarified that no petition till date has been filed before the Hon'ble National Commission. The counsel clearly stated the reason that due to not providing the information of delay the appeal could not been filed, and unfortunately resulted in further delay.
19. It is respectfully submitted that immediately on receipt of the said communication the matter was re-looked in the bank and vide communication dated 29.09.2014 the bank informed the reasons of delay more particularly the retirement, transfers and leaving of jobs by branch managers of the bank and also on account of heavy workload in the branch.
20. It is respectfully submitted that the appellant is a public sector undertaking and public money is involved although there is considerable delay of almost 6 years in filing the present appeal. However, the same is unintentional and was on account of bonafide reasons, as stated above.
21. It is respectfully submitted that the petitioner bank has narrated the true and correct facts of the matter; if the Hon'ble Commission will not allow the present application then the petitioner bank may suffer irreparable loss which cannot be compensated in terms of money.
22. It is respectfully submitted that the petitioner has shown sufficient cause for not filing the present petition before the Hon'ble Commission in time. The Petitioner further respectfully submits that the delay may kindly be condoned on such terms and conditions as this Hon'ble Commission may deem fit and proper.
Therefore, it is absolutely clear that, the OP wasted time in "if and buts". The submissions made in the said application are just vague and evasive. It should be borne in mind that Bank of India is a Public Sector Undertaking Bank. There should be a Head Office which controls it's Branch Offices, Divisional Offices and Regional Offices. There should be a legal department or legal cell, panel of advocates available. The submission like (para 4) "meeting at appropriate level" is just misleading and confusing statement. It is surprising that translation of the order of the District Forum from Marathi to English a month and its verification took almost 6 months, if went up to 24.01.2011. Thereafter, the Officer Mr. Nayak who was handling the matter got retired on 21.05.2011. But the new Officer could not put his hand on the file till December, 2011. Then it took time to prepare an application for Condonation of delay till 15.12.2011. The said officer also got retired on 21.03.2012. Thereafter till August, 2014 as stated in para 17, the matter was lingering till 29.09.2014. Therefore, the delay was for 6 years in filing this revision. It is further submitted in Para 20, that the bank is a public sector undertaking and public money is involved. However, the delay was on account of bonafide reasons and an unintentional.
The argument was not consuming. There is a very huge delay of 6 years, the petitioner was negligent in it's own act. Bank was not vigilant and careful in dealing with the cases of poor farmers who suffered in the hands of such bank. The vague and invasive reason mentioned in the application appears to be making mockery of the Complainants unnecessarily. The number of judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and this commission did not condone such huge unexplained delay. The expression 'sufficient cause' cannot be erased from Section 5 of the Limitation Act by adopting excessive liberal approach, which would defeat the very purpose of Section 5 of the Limitation Act and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. There must be some cause which can be termed as sufficient one for the purpose of condonation of delay.
6. The following authorities neatly dovetail with my view. In Banshi Vs. Lakshmi Narain - 1993 (1) R.L.R. 68, it was held that reason for delay was sought to be explained on the ground that the counsel did not inform the appellant in time, was not accepted since it was primarily the duty of the party himself to have gone to lawyer's office and inquired about the case.
7. In Jaswant Singh Vs. Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies 2000 (3) Punj. L.R. 83, it was observed that cause of delay was that the counsel of the appellant in the lower Court had told them that there was no need of their coming to Court and they would be informed of the result, as and when the decision comes, was held to be a story which cannot be believed.
8. In Bhandari Dass Vs. Sushila, 1997 (2) Raj LW 845, it was held that accusing the lawyer that he did not inform the client about the progress of the case nor did he send any letter, was disbelieved while rejecting an application to condone delay.
9. Similar view was taken in Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), R.B. Ramlingam v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC ), Ram Lal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361 and Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1221 and Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. 2012 STPL(Web) 132 (SC).
10. The Apex Court in a recent case i.e. Sanjay Sidgonda Patil vs. Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 37183 of 2013 decided on 17.12.2013, confirmed the order of the National Commission and refused to condone the delay of 13 days. Likewise, delay of 78 days was not condoned by the Apex Court in the case of M/s Ambadi Enterprise Ltd. vs. Smt. Rajalakshmi Subramanian in SLP No. 19896 of 2013 decided on 12.7.2013. Again delay of 77 days was not condoned in case of Chief Off. Nagpur Housing & Area Dev. Boa & Anr. vs. Gopinath Kawadu Bhagat, SLP No. 33792 of 2013 decided on 19.11.2013.
11. Thus, there is huge delay in filing the present revision petition, it should be dismissed with exemplary cost. It is well said that justice delayed is not only justice denied, it is also justice circumvented, justice mocked and the system of justice undermined. The complaint was filed in the year 2007. The Revision Petition of the petitioner further stands demolished by various authorities. Even on merits there is nothing, the order passed by the State Commission cannot be faulted. It is a case of gross negligence on the part of the petitioner, the Petitioner was lethargic.
12. The revision petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/-, which be deposited with the Pay and Accounts Officer, Ministry of Consumer Affairs under the Consumer Welfare Fund, within 90 days from the date of receipt of this order otherwise, it will carry interest @12% p.a. till its realization.
...................... DR. S.M. KANTIKAR PRESIDING MEMBER