National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Vinayak Uskelwar vs Ranjana on 2 June, 2016
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1657 OF 2016 (Against the Order dated 05/10/2011 in Appeal No. 761/2009 of the State Commission Maharastra) 1. VINAYAK USKELWAR R/O. PIPLA ROAD, NEAR SAVARBANDHE KARYALAYA, HUDKESHWAR, NAGPUR MAHARASHTRA ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. RANJANA W/O. SURESH FEDEWAR, R/O PLOT NO. 13, SARASWATI NAGAR, NEAR USKELWAR ITI HUDKESHWAR, NAGPUR MAHARASHTRA ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. REKHA GUPTA, MEMBER For the Petitioner : MRS. S.K. PAUNIKAR For the Respondent :
Dated : 02 Jun 2016 ORDER
1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 5.10.2011 of State Commission, Maharashtra in First Appeal No.A-09/761. The present petition, however, has been filed with a delay of 1485 days after the expiry of 90 days of period of limitation. The petitioner, therefore, has moved an application for condonation of delay being I.A. No.4870 of 2016.
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner received the free copy of the impugned order of the State Commission by post on 09.02.2012. The petitioner, thereafter contacted his counsel but counsel did not advise him to challenge the order in revision. The petitioner because of wrong legal advice could not file the revision petition in time. It is argued that though the petitioner was interested in pursuing his rights, he was prevented from filing the revision petition within the period limitation and because of wrong legal advice of his counsel, for which petitioner should not be penalized and if the delay is not condoned, the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and injustice.
3. The aforesaid explanation of the petitioner is not satisfactory, for the reasons that on perusal of the application for condonation of delay. From the record, it transpires that we find that execution proceedings under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 were initiated by the Respondent--Decree holder. The said proceedings were contested by the petitioner and the executing court vide order dated 16.4.2013 convicted the petitioner for non-compliance of the order of the District Forum (confirmed by the State Commission in appeal) and sentenced him undergo an imprisonment for a period of six months, besides fine of Rs.10,000/-. Petitioner even has filed an execution appeal under Section 27-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in the State Commission, which is still pending. Thus, it is clear that even after being served with notice of Execution Proceedings under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the petitioner opted to contest said proceedings but did not file revision petition. This clearly shows that petitioner was grossly negligent and his explanation for delay is not satisfactory.
4. The law relating to condonation of delay is well settled. In Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, it has been observed;
"It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by S.5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the enquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant".
5. In R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, 2009 (2) Scale 108 Apex Court has observed as follows:
"We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition.
6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) observed 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 foras."
7. In the light of the aforesaid judgments, when we consider the explanation given for condonation of delay in filing of revision petition, we find that it to be highly unsatisfactory. Under these circumstances, we decline to condone the inordinate delay of 1485 days in filing of the revision petition. The application for condonation of delay is dismissed, as consequence thereof, the revision petition is dismissed.
8. No order as to cost.
......................J AJIT BHARIHOKE PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... REKHA GUPTA MEMBER