National Consumer Disputes Redressal
M/S. Hi-Tech Dry Wash & Hygienic ... vs The Manager Kerala Financial ... on 7 August, 2013
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2667 OF 2013 (From the order dated 12.10.2012 in Appeal No. 836/2011 of Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram) WITH I.A. No. 4527/2013 (DELAY) 1. M/s. Hi-Tech Dry Wash & Hygienic Services, P.O. Box 57, Pathanamthitta P.O. Pin 689 645, Kerala Represented by its Power of Attorney Sri. Sharafudeen 2. Sri. Sharafudeen S/o Aboobacker, Shannovre House, Mele Vettipuram, Pathanamthitta. Pin 689 645 Kerala ... Petitioners Versus 1. The Manager Kerala Financial Corporation Pathanamthitta Branch, College Road, Pathanamthitta Pin 689 645 2. The Managing Director Kerala Financial Corporation Vellayambalam Thiruvananthapuram Respondent(s) BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS For the Petitioner(s) Mr. N.M. Varghese, Advocate PRONOUNCED ON : 7th AUGUST 2013 O R D E R
PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 12.10.2012 passed by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram (hereinafter referred as the State Commission) in Appeal No. 836/2011, M/s. Hi-Tech Dry Wash & Hygienic Services & Ors. Vs. The Manager, Kerala Financial Corporation, vide which while dismissing the appeal, order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Pathanamthitta in Complaint No. 109/2003 filed by the petitioners/complainants was upheld.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainants made an application to the respondents for a loan of Rs. 15 lakhs for starting a dry wash unit for self-employment purpose to earn their livelihood. The relevant documents and project report etc. were also submitted to the respondents.
It is claimed that there was verbal assurance from the officers of the Opposite Parties/Respondents that the said loan will be sanctioned. Based on that assurance, the complainants took further steps and invested huge money for placing orders for machinery etc. However, the Opposite Parties/Respondents rejected their loan application, stating that the proposal was neither technically feasible nor financially viable. The complainants filed Consumer Complaint against the Opposite Parties/Respondents against deficiency in service, but the District Forum vide order passed on 28.05.2010, dismissed the complaint, saying that the Opposite Parties had conducted studies and made inquiries about the complainants Project, but they found that the said Project was not feasible. The District Forum held that mere submission of a loan application does not qualify an applicant to be a Consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and they dismissed the complaint. The appeal filed against this order before the State Commission was also dismissed. It is against this order that the present petition has been filed.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and examined the record.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner was asked to explain the delay of 140 days in filing the said petition before the National Commission. The impugned order dated 12.10.2012 was received by the petitioner on 30.11.2012 but the petition was filed on 18.07.2013.
The time taken for obtaining the certified copy has been stated to be 49 days, but even after deducting this time and allowing the prescribed period of 90 days for filing the Revision Petition, there is a delay of 140 days. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the grounds mentioned in the application for condonation of delay and stated that the main reason was that the petitioners were unable to mobilize funds towards legal charges for taking steps to prefer the petition. It took them about six months to arrange the funds and to instruct the counsel to file the petition. The delay in filing the petition was not intentional. Moreover, petitioner no. 2 Sharafudeen was undergoing treatment for heart problem.
5. A careful consideration of the facts presented before us reveals that the petitioners have not been able to give solid and convincing reasons for explaining the delay in filing the present revision petition. It has been held by the Honble Apex Court in a number of cases, recently decided that unless, there is a cogent and convincing explanation for the delay, the same should not be condoned. In this regard, it shall be worthwhile to mention the following rulings given by the Honble Apex Court on the issue:-
6. In the case 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.
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. 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.
9. 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.
10. Honble Apex Court in 2012 (2) CPC 3 (SC) Ansul 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. In view of the above discussion, we do not find that there is enough justification for condoning the delay in filing this Revision Petition. This Revision Petition is, therefore, ordered to be dismissed on the ground of delay in filing the same, with no order as to costs.
..
(K.S. CHAUDHARI J.) PRESIDING MEMBER ..
(DR. B.C. GUPTA) MEMBER PSM