National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Kishanlal Hiralal Darak vs Secretary, Raosaheb on 17 October, 2012
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1117 OF 2012 (From the order dated 24.01.2011 in Appeal No. 2353/06 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, MAHARASHTRA, CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD) With IA No.1 of 2012 (For Condonation of Delay) Kishanlal Hiralal Darak S/o Hiralal Darak R/o Shivajinagar, Tq.& Dist. Parbhani Maharashtra Petitioner Versus Secretary Sh. Raosaheb S/o Krushatrao Shendarkar R/o Anandnagar, Nanded Tq. & Dist. Nanded Maharashtra Respondent BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Mahaling Pandarge, Advocate Pronounced on_17.10.2012 ORDER
JUSTICE J.M. MALIK
1. There is delay of 388 days in filing this revision petition. This revision petition, filed against the order passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai, Circuit Bench at Aurangabad, dated 24.01.2011, has been called into question. The State Commission had dismissed the complaint in default. The order of the State Commission clearly goes to show that the appeal was filed on 07.11.2006. The relevant portion of the impugned order runs as follows:
Notices were issued to appellant as well as respondent. None appeared on behalf of appellant. V.P. is received from Adv.Sh.S.B.Ghatol Patil for respondent. It appears that, appellant is not interested in pursuing the matter. Appeal is dismissed in default.
2. We have also perused the order passed by the District Forum.
3. The District Forum was pleased to hold that the complaint filed before it was barred by time, by at least 19 years, if not 30 years.
4. Turning to the plea raised in the application for condonation of delay filed before us, it is averred that the petitioner has filed the appeal before the State Commission at Mumbai, in the year 2006. Thereafter, it was transferred to newly constructed Circuit Bench at Aurangabad.
The petitioner was unable to present himself for hearing on 24.01.2011 due to lack of knowledge. It is stated that he did not receive the notice on 21.02.2011. Again the petitioner resides at Parbhani District. The complainant was unable to contact the local counsel in the month of February, 2011 to November, 2011 due to his ill-health and old-age and finally he was able to contact his local counsel in the month of December, 2011. He got the certified copy of the order on 12.12.2011. The counsel for the petitioner was asked to challenge the impugned order. It is stated that due to his old-age, the petitioner could not travel and ultimately his petition was filed in the month of March, 2012. It was prayed that delay of 388 days be condoned.
5. We have seen the record. It is clear that the free copy was issued on 21.02.2011. The free copy was served by post. Notices were issued to the appellant and the court correctly assumed that the same was served on the petitioner. There is no evidence in rebuttal. Even if the petitioner is an old person, he is negligent. This is the duty of the litigant to post himself from day-to-day hearings. The appeal was preferred before the State Commission in the year 2006 but it was dismissed in the year 2011 for its non-prosecution.
6. Mere old-age is not enough to condone the delay of 388 days. 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. There must be some cause which can be termed as a sufficient one for the purpose of delay condonation. We do not find any such sufficient cause stated in the application. The following authorities go to fortify the case of the petitioner.
7. In Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), it has been held 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.
8. In Balwant Singh Vs. Jagdish Singh & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 1166 of 2006), decided on 08.10.2010, it was held that the party should show, that, besides acting bonafide, it had taken all possible steps within its power and control and had approached the Court without any unnecessary delay. The test is whether or not a cause is sufficient to see whether it could have been avoided by the party by the exercise of due care and attention.
9. See also Mahindra Holidays & Resorts India Ltd. Versus Vasantkumar H. Khandelwal & Anr., Revision petition No. 1848 of 2012 decided on 21.05.2012, by this Commission, by the Bench, headed by Honble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhan.
10. In view of the foregoing, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed.
The revision petition, too, is dismissed.
....J (J.M. MALIK) PRESIDING MEMBER .
(VINAY KUMAR) MEMBER dd/1