State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Tdi Infratech Ltd. vs Jasleen Walia on 7 March, 2018
PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
Misc. Application No.318 of 2018
In/and
Revision Petition No. 7 of 2018
Date of Institution: 23.02.2018
Date of Decision : 07.03.2018
TDI Infratech Limited, SCO 144-145, TDI City, Sector 117, SAS
Nagar, Mohali.
.....Petitioner
Versus
1. Mrs. Jasleen Walia wife of Mr.Khushdeep Singh Walia, resident
of House No.1216, Sector 42-B, Chandigarh.
2. Mr.Khushdeep Singh Walia son of Sh.Karnail Singh Walia,
resident of House No.1216, Sector 42-B, Chandigarh.
.....Respondents
Revision Petition against the interim order
dated 18.04.2017 passed by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, SAS
Nagar, Mohali.
Before:-
Mr. Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
Mr. Rajinder Kumar Goyal, Member Present:-
For the petitioner : Sh.Puneet Tuli, Advocate GURCHARAN SINGH SARAN, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER The Revision Petitioner/Opposite parties No.1&2 (hereinafter referred as 'OPs') have filed this revision petition against the order dated 18.04.2017, vide which the District Forum did not take on the record the written version of opposite parties No.1&2 on the ground that it was not filed within the period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the notice after relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "New India Assurance Co. Revision petition No. 7 of 2018 2 Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd." reported in I (2016) CPJ 1. SCC M.A. No.318 of 2018 (Delay)
2. This application has been filed alongwith the revision petition for condonation of delay of 232 days in filing the revision petition. It has been stated in the application that the application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was filed, which was disposed of on 23.10.2017. The matter was examined by the management of the petitioner in consultation with the Law Officer and it was decided to file an application to grant permission to file the written statement in view of the judgment passed in "Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. Vs. M/s Mampee Timbers & Hardware Pvt. Ltd.". After preparing the application, the same was sent by the lawyer to the Regional Office of the petitioner for signature of the competent authority. However, during this process, the official dealing with the case, inadvertently put the file alongwith the application with some other bunch matters and file could not be located. After putting strenuous efforts, the file could not be traced out. The certified copy of the order dated 23.10.2017 and 18.04.2017 was applied and was received on 08.12.2017 then the lawyer took time to prepare the application again and sent it to the petitioner for signature of the competent person and accordingly they filed the application to grant permission to file the written statement before the District Forum which was declined on 11.01.2018. In this way, there is delay of 232 days in filing the revision petition, which is not intentional, therefore, this delay may kindly be condoned.
Revision petition No. 7 of 2018 3
3. We have heard the arguments of the revision petitioner.
4. Once the order passed on 18.04.2017 after relying upon the judgment New India Assurance Company Ltd. (supra), the written version of opposite parties No.1&2 was declined to be taken on the record as it was not filed within the period of 45 days. It is a settled preposition of law that the District Forum cannot review its own order, therefore, filing of the application before the District Forum to take their written version on the record was just to gain the time. It was declined on 18.04.2017 on the ground that the District Forum does not have any power to review its own order. Therefore, it will not help the petitioner to condone the delay as their application for placing on record the written statement was declined on 11.01.2018, whereas, it was so declined on 18.04.2017, therefore, the limitation period will be from 18.04.2017 and moving a fresh application to take on record the written version of opposite party No.2 is not a sufficient ground.
5. It has been further stated that the application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was filed, which was disposed of on 23.10.2017. It is not mentioned when the application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was filed before the District Forum. Otherwise, there was no bar for the opposite parties to file the written version alongwith the application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation act. The decision of application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is no ground not to move the revision petition because the petitioner cannot took the plea that the application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act will be decided in their favour. Revision petition No. 7 of 2018 4
6. It has been further stated that this file was tagged with some other bunch matters and could not be located and then application was moved to get another certified copy of the order dated 23.10.2017 & 18.04.2017, which was received on 08.12.2017. In para No.4 of the application, it does not disclose on which date this file was tagged with other bunch of matter. Therefore, without date it is a vague plea. In case, the order was passed on 18.04.2017 then this appeal or revision should have been filed immediately and in case it was not immediately available, the certified copy of the order can be taken on priority from the District Forum. Therefore, the story of tagging this file with other bunch of papers seems to be a created one. The time frame has been given under the Act to dispose of the complaints and appeals within the limited period. The procedure for admission of the complaint has been prescribed that is why maximum 30 days period has been fixed to file the written statement with a provision to further extend the period for another 15 days. Under clause 3A of Section 13. It has been provided that every complaint shall be heard expeditiously as possible and endeavour shall be made to decide the complaint within the period of 3 months from the date of receipt of the notice by opposite party. In case, such a long delay of 232 days in filing the revision petition is allowed, then it will mitigate the basic spirit of the legislature to expeditiously decide the complaints. In this regard, a reference can be made to a judgment reported in 2013 (3) CPR 441 titled as "Manavshakti Gruh Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Ltd. Through its President, Sheikh Mehmood Sheikh Mehboob & Anr. V. Ramesh Sampatrao Rewatkar". To prove a sufficient cause is the basic requirement to condone the Revision petition No. 7 of 2018 5 delay in filing the revision petition but as per the facts stated above, counsel for the revision petitioner has not been able to set up any sufficient ground to condone the delay in filing the revision petition. In this regard, a reference can be made to judgment reported in IV (2017) CPJ 155 titled as "Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. V. Hanuman Prasad Meena" wherein it has been observed that the time was taken to complete the necessary formalities. It was not considered to be a sufficient ground to condone the delay. A reference can be made to another judgment IV (2017) CPJ 546 titled as "Meerut Development Authority V. Arun Prakash", in that case, there was delay of 182 days. It was observed by the Hon'ble National Commission that no cogent or convincing reason for condonation of huge delay was given. Therefore, we are of the opinion that no sufficient cause has been pleaded/ proved on the record to condone the long delay of 232 days. Therefore, we do not see any merit in the revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed in-limine.
(GURCHARAN SINGH SARAN) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (RAJINDER KUMAR GOYAL) MEMBER March 07, 2018 parmod