State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ramesh Bansal vs Cox & King Ltd. on 19 January, 2017
Daily Order IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI (Constituted under section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision: 19.01.2017 Revision Petition No. 111/2015 In the Matter of: Ramesh Bansal R/o C-44, Sector-4, Noida, UP ......Petitioner Versus Cox & King Ltd. Through Its Director Indra Palace, H Block, Connaught Circus New Delhi-110001 .......Respondent CORAM Justice Veena Birbal, President Ms. Salma Noor, Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
Justice Veena Birbal, President
1. This is a petition u/s 17(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short 'the Act') wherein prayer is made for setting aside the order dated 11.02.2014 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-V (in short 'the District Forum')
2. Along with the petition there is an application for condonation of delay of 633 days in filing the revision petition.
3. A complaint u/s 12 of the Act was filed by the petitioner/complainant against respondent/OP before the Ld. District Forum seeking directions to the OP to refund the tour package booking amount of Rs. 95,500/- booked in the year 2011. The complaint was filed in the year 2012 and when the complaint was at the stage of filing rejoinder and evidence, the same was not filed by the petitioner/complainant despite opportunities given in this regard and ultimately Ld. District Forum forfeited the right of petitioner/complainant for filing rejoinder and evidence vide order dated 11.02.2014.
4. The petition challenging the aforesaid order has been filed on 07.12.2015. There is a delay of 633 days in filing the same. It is alleged that the complaint was being pursued through an advocate of the petitioner/complainant. The petitioner/complainant was under the bonafide belief that his counsel was regularly appearing in the matter. It is stated that in the month of November 2015, the petitioner/complainant made enquiries from his previous counsel who after enquiring from his clerk informed that right of petitioner/complainant to file rejoinder and evidence had been closed. It is stated that there is inadvertent mistake on the part of counsel. It is stated that thereafter the petitioner/complainant changed the counsel and entrusted the case to present counsel and thereafter the steps were taken for setting aside the aforesaid order. It is stated that there is a negligence on the part of previous counsel as such petitioner/complainant be not allowed to suffer and the delay of 633 days in filing the revision petition be condoned.
5. Application is strongly opposed by the respondent/OP by filing reply wherein it is stated that application is nothing but an abuse of process of law. It is stated that the petitioner/complainant has failed to give any reasonable explanation to explain the delay. It is stated that number of opportunities were given by the Ld. District Forum to petitioner/complainant for filing rejoinder and evidence and when it was not filed, left with no option Ld. District Forum closed the right for filing rejoinder and evidence.
6. We have heard the counsel for parties.
7. There is nothing on record to show that as to what steps were taken by the petitioner/complainant to enquire from his counsel about the progress of the case. The complaint was filed in the year 2012. The right of petitioner/complainant to file rejoinder and evidence had been closed on 02.12.2014. As per allegations made in the application, the petitioner/complainant enquired from his counsel for the first time only in November 2015. The petitioner/complainant was supposed to pursue his case diligently. He cannot shift entire burden on his counsel. There is a serious lapse on the part of petitioner/complainant in not pursuing his case. The delay of 633 days is a substantial delay.
8. The Hon'ble, Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), has laid down that:
"It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Foras."
9. Decision of Anshul Aggarwal (supra), has been reiterated in Cicily Kallarackal v. Vehicle Factory, IV (2012) CPJ I (SC)=VIII (2012) SLT 585, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court observed:
"4. This Court in Anshul Aggarwal v. NOIDA, (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), has explained the scope of condonation of delay in a matter where the special Courts/Tribunals have been constituted in order to provide expeditious remedies to the person aggrieved and Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is one of them. Therefore, this Court held that while dealing with the application for condonation of delay in such cases the Courts must keep in mind the special period of limitation prescribed under the statues(s).
5. In the instant case, condoning such an inordinate delay without any sufficient cause would amount to substituting the period of limitation by this Court in place of the period prescribed by the Legislature for filing the special leave petition. Therefore, we do not see any cogent reason to condone the delay.
6. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case as explained hereinabove, we are not inclined to entertain these petitions. The same are dismissed on the ground of delay."
10. The petitioner/complainant has not pursued his case with due diligence. There is an inordinate delay on his part without substantiating any sufficient cause. Accordingly we dismiss the application for condonation of delay. Consequently, the revision petition also stands dismissed being barred by limitation.
A copy of the order be sent to the parties free of costs as well as to Ld. District Forum for necessary information.
File be consigned to record room.
(Justice Veena Birbal) President (Salma Noor) Member