State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Senior Postmaster vs Jasjot Singh Sandhu on 25 June, 2024
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PUNJAB,
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
Revision Petition No.25 of 2024
Date of Institution : 04.03.2024
Reserved on : 06.06.2024
Date of Decision : 25.06.2024
The Senior Postmaster, GPO, Sector 17, Chandigarh.
........Petitioner/Opposite Party No.2
Versus
1. Jasjot Singh Sandhu, resident of Flat No.1101, Floor 11, Eco Towers,
Sector-125, New Sunny Enclave, Mohali.
.......Respondent No.1/Complainant
2. Department of Posts, The Director, Foreign Post, New Delhi.
.......Performa Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.1
Revision Petition under Section 47 (1) (b) of
the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for
setting aside the orders dated 19.07.2023 &
12.12.2023 passed by the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission, SAS Nagar,
Mohali.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President
Ms. Simarjot Kaur, Member
Present:-
For the petitioner : Sh. Vikas Kashyap, Advocate For respondent No.1 : None JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY, PRESIDENT:-
Petitioner/OP No.2 has filed the present Revision Petition under Section 41 (1)(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short the "Act") for setting aside the impugned order dated 19.07.2023 as well as 12.12.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali in C.C. No.202 of 2022. 2
Revision Petition No.25 of 2024
2. The Respondent No.1/Complainant Jasjot Singh Sandhu filed Consumer Complaint before the District Commission with the prayer for issuance of direction to OPs No.1 and 2 to refund the entire amount paid for sending the parcel and amount of the items/gifts lost inside the parcel alongwith an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation, Rs.75,000/- as litigation expenses and Rs.1,00,000/- for deficiency in service.
3. Said Complaint came up for hearing on 05.04.2022 and also on 16.05.2022 but it was not heard and thereafter it came up for hearing on 24.05.2022 wherein notice was issued to the OPs ordered to be sent through registered cover for 28.08.2022. The OPs were also directed to submit their written version alongwith all documentary evidence on the date so fixed. Notice was sent to the OPs through registered post on 08.07.2022 but as per the office report, it was not received back. Meaning thereby, the service was complete as per presumption. The Complaint came up for hearing on 23.08.2023 and the Counsel representing OP had filed his memo of appearance on behalf of OP No.2. Further the fresh notice was issued to OP No.1 on furnishing correct address within a period of 10 days. Thereafter, the Complaint came up for hearing on 23.11.2023 but still the written version was not filed and thereafter last opportunity was granted to file the written version subject to cost. Thereafter, Counsel representing OP No.2 appeared on 23.01.2023 but none had appeared on behalf of OP No.1. Written version was not filed even on 01.06.2023. Thereafter, the Complaint came up for hearing on 12.06.2023 but it was adjourned due to incomplete quorum for 19.07.2023. However, said OP filed its written version in the Registry on 22.06.2023. The Complaint came up for hearing on 19.07.2023 and the relevant portion of the order passed on said date is re-produced as under:-
3
Revision Petition No.25 of 2024 "OP No.2 filed the written version with the registry on 22.06.2023. However, written version was filed after the expiry of maximum period of 45 days as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as New India Insurance Company Ltd.
Versus Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage (2020) 5 SCC 757. Therefore, even if written version is already on the file, it cannot be considered."
It has been mentioned in said order dated 19.07.2023 that OP No.2 had filed written version but it was filed in the Registry and it was filed after the expiry of maximum period of 45 days. Thereafter, Review Application was filed by the OPs which was dismissed on 12.12.2023. Both said orders i.e. 19.07.2023 as well as 12.12.2023 passed by the District Commission are subject matter of challenge before this Commission in the Revision Petitioner filed by the Petitioner/OP No.2.
4. There was a delay of 156 days in filing of the Revision Petition. M.A. No.422 of 2024 has been filed for condonation of delay of 156 days which is supported by an affidavit.
5. Notice in the Application for condonation of delay was issued to the Respondent/Complainant. Service was complete but none had appeared on behalf of respondent No.1 despite service.
6. Mr. Vikas Kashyap Advocate, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the reasons as mentioned in the Application for condonation of delay are sufficient to condone the delay and there were merits in the Revision Petition as well. Learned Counsel has further submitted that the Counsel who was deputed to argue the case had appeared on behalf of Petitioner before the District Commission on the date fixed and filed his memo of appearance. Learned Counsel has further submitted that the concerned Counsel could not file reply within time and 4 Revision Petition No.25 of 2024 on the request made on his behalf the case was adjourned to 23.01.2023 subject to cost of Rs.1000/-. Further on 23.01.2023 and 01.06.2023, but still the written reply was not filed by the petitioner. On 12.06.2023, the case was adjourned to 19.07.2023 due to incomplete quorum. In the meantime, the Petitioner/OP No.2 filed written reply in the Registry on 22.06.2023 but still the impugned order dated 19.07.2023 was passed by stating that written version was filed after the expiry of maximum period of 45 days. It was also observed that the written reply had already been filed then also it could not be considered. Thereafter, learned Counsel has further submitted that the Application was filed for review/recall of the order dated 19.07.2023 which was also dismissed on 12.12.2023. Learned Counsel has further submitted that the Petitioner was having good case on merits and his intention was not to delay the matter in any manner. The Petitioner had also undertaken to file/adduce the evidence on the next date of hearing. At the end, it has been submitted that the Review Application was also dismissed without any application of mind and in case the delay had occurred it was on the part of the Court itself. In case the Petitioner is allowed to argue and to adduce evidence, no prejudice would be caused to the party opposite. The Applicant/Petitioner had got the copy of the order dated 12.12.2023 on 21.02.204 and the Applicant had changed his Counsel as well. The Applicant/Petitioner filed Revision Petition on 04.03.2024 but the objection was raised that the certified copy of order dated 19.07.2023 was not filed. The Applicant/Petitioner had applied for the certified copy of the order dated 19.07.2023 which was received on 15.03.2024 and thereafter the objections were removed on 19.03.2024. The delay of 156 days had occurred due to time spent in obtaining permission from various Authorities as it was to be routed through various 5 Revision Petition No.25 of 2024 channels. The delay was not intentional as it was not under the control of the Applicant/Petitioner.
7. We have heard the arguments raised by learned Counsel for the petitioner. None has appeared on behalf of Respondent No.1/Complainant despite service. We have also carefully perused the entire record of the case.
8. Admittedly, the Complaint was filed by the Complainant wherein notice was issued to the OPs vide order dated 24.05.2022 for 23.08.2022 for effecting service. The OPs were also directed to submit their written version alongwith entire documentary evidence on the date fixed. It was also mentioned in the order that the long date was given as there was huge pendency of the cases in the Commission. Despite availing a number of opportunities, the written reply was not filed by the Petitioner/OP No.2. Thereafter, the Complaint came up for hearing on 23.11.2022 and last opportunity was granted to the Petitioner/OP No.2 to file written version on 23.01.2023 subject to cost of Rs.1000/-. Thereafter, the Complaint came up for hearing on 23.01.2023 and it was adjourned for 01.06.2023 by mentioning that written version be filed by OP No.2 on the next date. Thereafter, the Complaint came up for hearing on 01.06.2023 but the quorum was stated to be incomplete. None had appeared on behalf of OP No.2 and no written version was filed. Cost amount was also not deposited. Thereafter, the Complaint was adjourned for 12.06.2023 but on that day also the quorum was not complete as the Member was stated to be on leave and the Complaint was adjourned to 19.07.2023. Thereafter, the Complaint was heard on 19.07.2023 and the impugned order dated 19.07.2023 was passed stating that the Petitioner/OP No.2 had filed the written version on 22.06.2023 in the registry and it was filed after the expiry 6 Revision Petition No.25 of 2024 of maximum period of 45 days as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of case New India Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage (2020) 5 SCC 757. The written version which was already on record was not taken into consideration. Thereafter, the Review Application was filed before the District Commission and it was adjourned on various dates i.e. 08.08.2023, 18.08.2023, 29.08.2023, 27.09.2023, 10.10.2023, 01.11.2023, 23.11.2023 and on 12.12.2023. The Review Application filed by the Petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 12.12.2023, which is reproduced as under:-
"This order will dispose of the review application filed by the OP No.2 for review of order dated 19.07.2023 vide which right of OP No.2 to file written version was struck off for not filing the same within stipulated period of 45 days in view of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Store (2020) 5 SCC 757. Reply to application not filed by the complainant. Section 40 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 deals with review by District Commission in certain cases which reads as under:
"The District Commission shall have the power to review any of the order passed by it if there is an error apparent on the face of the record, either of its own motion or on an application made by any of the parties within thirty days of such order."
During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the OP No.2 could not point out any error apparent on the face of record which required review of order dated 19.07.2023. Accordingly, the application filed by the OP No.2 fails and the same is hereby dismissed.
To come up on 28.02.2024 for arguments."
On perusal of the orders passed by the District Commission, it is apparent that the Complaint was adjourned on a number of occasions on one ground or the other. Delay was not only on the part of the Petitioner but it 7 Revision Petition No.25 of 2024 was on the part of the District Commission. On perusal of record, it is also apparent that even on expiry of period of 45 days still time was given by the District Commission to file the written statement whereas as per the judgment of the Constitutional Bench of case Hilli Multipurpose (Supra) the response/reply to the complaint should have been filed within a period of 45 days (30 days + 15 days extended period) from the date of receipt of copy of complaint alongwith documents.
Same issue was also there before the Hon'ble National Commission in Consumer Case No.28 of 2021 titled as Kutumb Welfare Society v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (Noida) & Anr. The order passed by the Hon'ble National Commission in the said case on 13.06.2022 is reproduced as under:
"Mr. Prabhakar Tiwari, learned Counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No.2 has not filed Written Version so far. Time for filing the Written Version as provided under Section 13 (1) (a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 now replaced by Section 38 (2) (a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which is in force since 20/24.07.2020 has expired. This Commission does not have the power to condone the delay beyond 30 + 15 days as provided in the statute. Right of Opposite Party No.2 to file the Written Version stands closed.
Rejoinder and Evidence by way of Affidavit be filed by the Complainant, within four weeks. Thereafter, the Opposite Party no.1 shall file Evidence by way of Affidavit, within four weeks.
List for Final Hearing on 14.12.2022 before the appropriate Bench as per Roster.
In the meanwhile, learned Counsel for the Parties may file Written Submissions after exchanging them."8
Revision Petition No.25 of 2024 Said order dated 13.06.2022 was further challenged by the OP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of filing SLP (Civil) Diary No(s).31629/2022 and it was dismissed vide order dated 04.11.2022. The order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 04.11.2022 is reproduced as under:
"Delay condoned.
It is not in dispute that the written statement was filed beyond the period of 45 days. The period of limitation to file is 30 days which can be condoned up to 15 days only.
As observed and held by this Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage (P) Ltd. (2020) 5 SCC 757, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to condone the delay beyond the prescribed period mentioned in the Statute.
In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has committed any error in refusing to condone the delay which was beyond 45 days.
The present Special Leave Petition stands dismissed.
Pending Application stands disposed of."
The purpose and object of curtailment of specified time was by keeping in view the speedy disposal of the cases of the consumers so that the speedy justice is done within the shortest time.
The District Commission has not taken into consideration the object of the said provision as well as the Constitutional Bench judgment of the Apex Court of case Hilli Multipurpose (Supra) and had granted a number of opportunities to file written version whereas it should not have been granted on the expiry of 45 days. Such order could have been passed much earlier but the dates have been given without any application of mind and even by ignoring the ratio of judgment of Constitutional Bench. Two yardsticks cannot be made applicable when the issue is for speedy 9 Revision Petition No.25 of 2024 disposal of the cases in view of ratio of judgment of five Judges Bench. It is not only applicable to the parties to the case but it is also applicable to the Court. Although efforts have been made to rectify the mistake which had been committed earlier while passing the impugned order but the order which was passed after a delay, should have been passed much earlier. It is not only wastage of time of the court but harassment to the parties also. The orders are expected to be passed with proper application of mind with due diligence. Certain inadvertent mistakes are some time serious which cannot be ignored.
9. Even in the Application for condonation of delay of 156 days simply it has been mentioned that the Applicant/Petitioner got the copy of the order dated 12.12.2023 on 21.02.2024 and thereafter, he changed his Counsel and had engaged some other Counsel. Thereafter, Revision was filed on 04.03.2024 where certain objections were raised. Certified copy of the order dated 19.07.2023 was not filed and thereafter it was applied which was received on 15.03.2024 and thereafter it was supplied to the Counsel on 16.03.2024. Further it has been mentioned that the Counsel had prayed for removal the objections on 17.03.2024 and 18.03.2024 but he had failed and finally objections were removed on 19.03.2024. It was also the arguments that time was spent for obtaining permission from the Authorities and due to that reason also the delay of 156 days had occurred in filing the Revision Petition. The Application of condonation of delay has been drafted casually without taking into consideration the correct facts and figures. The Applicant/Petitioner's Counsel had remained casual in drafting the Application. The delay of 156 days has not been explained properly. Totally a vague Application has been filed without any application of mind.
10Revision Petition No.25 of 2024
10. The Complaint was filed by the Complainant wherein notice was issued for 23.08.2022. Office of the District Commission had sent notice through registered post on 08.07.2022. The notice was not received back served or unserved. Counsel on behalf of OP No.2 appeared before the District Commission on 23.08.2022 and filed memo of appearance. The case was adjourned to 23.11.2022 for filing of written version by OP No.2. On 23.11.2022 the District Commission again granted opportunity to OP No.2 to file written version against the provisions of Section 38(2)(a) and law laid down by Constitutional Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in case Hilli Multipurpose (Supra). The Court should have remained vigilant before passing such like orders.
11. In view of the reasons and the judgments of the Apex Court as mentioned above, we find no merit in the contentions raised by learned Counsel for the Petitioner accordingly, the Revision Petition is dismissed not only on the ground of delay but on merit also.
12. Since the main case is decided, the pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
(JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY)
PRESIDENT
(SIMARJOT KAUR)
June 25, 2024 MEMBER
(MM)