National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Girish Kohle vs S.B.I. Cards & Payments Pvt. Ltd. on 9 April, 2013
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2097 OF 2011 alongwith I.A. NO.02 OF 2012 (For Condonation of Delay) (From the order dated 3.8.2009 Appeal No.316/2009 of the State Commission, Chhattisgarh) Girish Kohle D-16, Tagore Nagar, Raipur, Chhatitisgarh 492 001 Petitioner Vs. S.B.I. Cards & Payments Pvt. Ltd. P.O. Bag No.-28, GPO, New Delhi Having Registered Office 11, Parliament Street, New Delhi 110 001. .Respondent BEFORE: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE MRS. REKHA GUPTA, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Pramod Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent : Ms. Amita Kumari, Advocate Pronounced on : 9th April, 2013 ORDER
PER MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER Petitioner/complainant has filed the present revision petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, Act) challenging order dated 5.10.2009, passed by Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur (for short, State Commission), vide which petitioners appeal challenging order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (for short, District Forum) dated 4.7.2007 dismissing the complaint of the petitioner was dismissed.
2. Case of petitioner before District Forum was that he had obtained a credit card from the respondent/opposite party. As per demand made by the respondent, certain amount was due towards the petitioner which had been wrongly added in the account of the petitioner. Further, undue pressure was created upon the petitioner for payment of that amount. It was stated that no fees would be chargeable for next one year, but in the bill such fees was charged. Thus, deficiency in service was committed by the respondent.
3. None appeared for the respondent before the District Forum despite service of the notice. Hence, respondent was proceeded ex parte.
4. District Forum, dismissed the complaint holding that petitioner himself was careless in not making due payment to the respondent.
5. Being aggrieved by the order of District Forum, petitioner filed an appeal, which was dismissed by the State Commission.
6. Alongwith the present petition, an application seeking condonation of delay of 365 days has also been filed. However, as per office noting, there is delay of 533 days.
7. We have heard arguments on application for condonation of delay and gone through the record.
8. Grounds on which condonation of delay has been sought read as under;
4. After the order of the State Commission dated 5.10.2009, the petitioner came to know that the respondent has also started a parallel and unilateral arbitration proceeding against the petitioner for recovery of its alleged claim which has been disputed by the petitioner under the Act.
5. That on 3.12.2009 the petitioner received a letter from arbitrator situated in Delhi who was appointed by the respondent to arbitrate the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent for payment dispute. Vide said notice/letter the Arbitrator informed the petitioner to attend the arbitration proceeding which was fixed for 22.1.2010.
6. That on 17.12.2009 the petitioner replied to the Arbitrator of the respondent that Petitioner does not accept any kind of arbitration in this regard and informed them that petitioner was going to challenge the order of State Commission before the National Commission.
7. That it is stated that petitioner is a government servant and it is a very difficult for him to take leave to attend the hearing time and again. It was very difficult for the petitioner to manage all this hassles while doing his job. There was also a unilateral arbitration proceeding initiated simultaneously by the respondent against the petitioner. In such circumstances the petitioner could not take steps further within a reasonable period.
8. That surprisingly, after almost ten months, petitioner received a copy of an arbitration award dated 24.09.2010 purportedly passed by the Arbitrator against the petitioner whereby an award of Rs.1,21,367/- together with interest @ 2.95% per month, from the date of accrual of the cause of action as per statement of claim till the date of decree or the date of payment whichever is earlier was pass against the petitioner.
9. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
10. That thereafter there was no other option before the petitioner except to approach before this Hon'ble Commission for justice. On 21.2.2011 the petitioner filed the present revision petition before this Hon'ble Commission.
11. That thus there is delay of about 365 days of almost one year in filing the revision petition.
9. As per petitioners own case, State Commission had passed the order of 5.10.2009. He also came to know that, respondent has started parallel arbitration proceeding for which he had received intimation from the Arbitrator. It is also petitioners case that on 17.12.2009, he replied to the Arbitrator stating that he does not accept any kind of arbitration in this regard and was going to challenge the order of the State Commission. Admittedly, order of State Commission was challenged only on 21.2.2011 by filing the present petition. There is no explanation at all as to why from 17.12.2009 till 21.2.2011, petitioner did not challenge the order of the State Commission.
10. It is well settled that sufficient cause for condoning the delay in each case is a question of fact.
11. Under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, a special period of limitation has been provided to ensure expeditious disposal of cases. Complaint has to be disposed of within 90 days from the date of filing where no expert evidence is required to be taken and within 150 days where expert evidence is required to be taken. The inordinate delay of 365 days cannot be condoned without showing sufficient cause. Day to day delay has also not been explained. We are not satisfied with the explanation given.
12. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) has held that while deciding the application filed for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Act for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if the appeals and revisions which are highly belated are entertained. Relevant observations made by Apex Court read as under:
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 fora.
13. The inordinate delay of 365 days cannot be condoned. Thus, we reject the application for seeking condonation of delay of 365 days in filing the revision petition before this Commission. Consequently, we dismiss the present revision petition being time barred with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only).
14 Petitioner is directed to deposit the cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) by way of demand draft in the name of Consumer Welfare Fund as per Rule 10A of Consumer Protection Rules, 1987, within four weeks from today. In case, he fails to deposit the cost within prescribed period, then he shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. till its realization.
15. List on 17.05.2013 for compliance.
..J (V.B. GUPTA) PRESIDING MEMBER ..
(REKHA GUPTA) MEMBER Sg/