National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Smt. Jeevanti Devi vs Commercial Motors & Anr. on 14 August, 2013
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2021-2022 OF 2013 (From the order dated 14.09.2012 in Appeal Nos. 43/2011 & 44/2011 of the Uttarakhand Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dehradun) Smt. Jeevanti Devi W/o Sh. Lal Singh Nayal R/o Adarsh Colony, Kathgodam District Nainital Uttarakhand Petitioner/Complainant Versus 1. Commercial Motors Bareilly Road,Haldwani, Distt. Nainital, Uttarakhand Through its Partner Sh. Manik Chandra 2. Tata Motors Ltd. 26th Floor, Centre A-1, World Trade Center, Cafi Parade, Mumbai 400 005 Respondents/Opp. Parties (OP) BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Sandeep Malik, Advocate Mr. Sanpreet Singh, Advocate For the Respondent No.1: Mr. Nikhil Jain, Advocate/Caveator PRONOUNCED ON 14th August, 2013 O R D E R
PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER These revision petitions have been filed by the Petitioner/Complainant against the order dated 14.09.2012 passed by the Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dehradun (in short, the State Commission) in Appeal Nos. 43 & 44 of 2011 Commercial Motors Vs. Smt. Jeevanti Devi & Anr. and Tata Motors Ltd. Vs. Smt. Jeevanti Devi & Anr. by which, while allowing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was set aside.
2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner filed complaint before District forum and learned District Forum vide order dated 22.1.2011 allowed complaint and directed OPs to pay Rs.5,69,085/- (cost of Tata Winger UK04-PA-0020) along with interest and cost. Appeal filed by the OP was allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order and complaint was dismissed against which, this revision petition has been filed with application for condonation of delay of 135 days.
3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner at admission stage and perused record.
4. In application for condonation of delay, petitioner submitted that petitioner is a senior citizen and an old lady residing in a distant place in District Nainital and she has a history of prolonged illness. It was further alleged that petitioner was not aware about the order, but respondents informed to the petitioner that State Commission has dismissed complaint; so, petitioner may take back her vehicle from respondents premises.
Petitioner asked her son to enquire who confirmed that order has been passed by State Commission. Thereafter, petitioner consulted his family friends and well-wishers, who advised him to file appeal against the order.
Thereafter, son of the applicant contacted Counsel at New Delhi. Counsel got the documents translated in English from Hindi and then revision petition has been filed and further submitted that delay was neither intentional nor deliberate which may be condoned.
5. Learned State Commission passed impugned order on 14.9.2012 and revision petition has been filed on 17.5.2013, i.e. after 135 days. Petitioner has not disclosed in his application when respondent informed to the petitioner about dismissal of complaint by State Commission, when petitioner asked his Counsel to file revision petition and when revision petition was prepared. As no details have been given by the petitioner in application for condonation of delay about getting knowledge of the order and consultation with the Advocate for filing revision petition, we do not find any satisfactory explanation for inordinate delay of 135 days in filing revision petition.
6. As there is inordinate delay of 135 days, this delay cannot be condoned in the light of the following judgment passed by the Honble Apex Court.
7. 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.
8. In R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari 2009 (2) Scale 108, it has been observed:
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.
9. Honble Supreme Court after exhaustively considering the case law on the aspect of condonation of delay observed in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation reported in (2010) 5 SCC 459 as under;
We have considered the respective submissions. The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The legislature does not prescribe limitation with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that they do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek remedy without delay. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a period fixed by the legislature. To put it differently, the law of limitation prescribes a period within which legal remedy can be availed for redress of the legal injury. At the same time, the courts are bestowed with the power to condone the delay, if sufficient cause is shown for not availing the remedy within the stipulated time.
10. Honble Apex Court in 2012 (2) CPC 3 (SC) Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority 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.
11. Honble Apex Court in (2012) 3 SCC 563 Post Master General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. and Anr.
has not condoned delay in filing appeal even by Government department and further observed that condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the Government departments.
Thus, it becomes clear that there is no reasonable explanation at all for condonation of inordinate delay of 135 days. Revision petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay alone.
12. As application for condonation of delay has been rejected, revision petition being barred by time is liable to be dismissed.
13. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioners is dismissed at admission stage being barred by limitation with no order as to costs.
..Sd/-
( K.S. CHAUDHARI, J) PRESIDING MEMBER ..Sd/-
( DR. B.C. GUPTA ) MEMBER k