National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Tata Motors Ltd. vs Sandip Basu & Anr. on 28 June, 2016
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1921 OF 2016 (Against the Order dated 29/04/2016 in Appeal No. 1249/2015 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. TATA MOTORS LTD. REGIONAL OFFICE AT RENE TOWER, 3RD FLOOR, 1842, RAJDANGA MAIN ROAD, P.S. KASBA, KOLKATA-700107 WEST BENGAL ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. SANDIP BASU & ANR. S/O. LATE SACHIDRANATH BASU, R/O. NEW CIRCULAR LANE, P.S. KOTOWALI, P.O. & DISTRICT-JALPAIGURI-735101 WEST BENGAL 2. MANAGER, LEXICAN MOTORS, (PROPRIETOR RELIANCE INDUSTRIAL CONSORTIUM LTD.) KUSUM NAGAR, MATIGARA, DISTRICT-DARJEELING-734010 WEST BENGAL ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN, PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Chandan Malik, Advocate Mr. Saurabh Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent :
Dated : 28 Jun 2016 ORDER
1. The matter was listed today before Bench No.5. However, as the said Bench not in session today, on being mentioned, we have taken it up.
2. This Revision Petition, under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), has been filed by Tata Motors Ltd., being the Manufacturer of the vehicle in question and Opposite Party No.2 in the Complaint, against the order dated 29.04.2016 passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Kolkata (for short "the State Commission") in First Appeal No. A/1249/2015. By the impugned order, the State Commission has declined to condone a delay of 91 days in filing of the Appeal by the Petitioner and has consequently dismissed the Appeal.
3. The Appeal had been filed by the Petitioner herein against the order dated 16.07.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Jalpaiguri (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint Case No. CC/112/2013. By the said order, the District Forum, while dismissing the Complaint against Petitioner's Dealer, Opposite Party No.1, proceeded ex-parte against the Petitioner and allowed the Complaint qua it. The District Forum directed the Petitioner to either (i) take back the vehicle in question from the Complainant at its own expenses, rectify the defect complained of, viz., high consumption of fuel, return the same to him within a period of 30 days or (ii) replace the vehicle with a new one within the said period or (iii) pay the price of the vehicle, including the tax etc., within the aforesaid period, with a default stipulation of interest @ 8% p.a. till realization in the event of Petitioner opting for refund of price of the vehicle. The District Forum had also directed the Petitioner to pay to the Complainant a sum of ₹25,000/- as compensation for mental pain, harassment, agony etc. along with a sum of ₹5,000/- as litigation costs, with further default clause in the form of interest @ 8% per annum till realization. These directions came to be made as the District Forum had come to the conclusion that being the Manufacturer of the vehicle in question, the Petitioner was solely responsible for the sale of defective car to the Complainant, inasmuch as its fuel consumption was much more than what was publicized at the time of its sale, and despite Complainant's repeated requests through the Dealer, his grievance was not redressed by the Petitioner; and, therefore, the Petitioner was guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, as alleged by the Complainant.
4. Aggrieved, the Petitioner filed the afore-noted Appeal before the State Commission, however, with a delay of 91 days. An Application, praying for condonation of the said delay, was filed along with the Appeal. For the sake of ready reference, the relevant paragraphs (3 to 9) of the said application are extracted below:
"3. That the delay occurred in filing the Appeal for the following reasons:
On 15th Oct'15 the Appellant received the plain copy of the Order dated 16.7.15 sent by the Complainant/Respondent No.1 by a letter dated 14.9.2015 addressed to an incorrect address of the Appellant/Respondent No.2 at Passenger Car Business Unit, KD-03, Power Plant Sector 15, PNCTDA, Chikhali, Pune, Pin-410501 and a copy of the letter dated 14.9.15 issued by the Complainant and the envelop is annexed herewith and is marked as Annexure B collectively.
That it is pertinent to mention here that the said letter dated 14.9.2015 was received on 23.9.2015 by the Pune Plant office and subsequently forwarded to the Corporate Office at Mumbai of the Appellant on 13th Oct'15 and received by the Appellant at its Regional Office Kolkata on 15th Oct'15.
That immediately on receiving the above referred letter on 15.10.2015, afternoon and immediately thereafter contacted with the local dealing Advocate Mr Satyakam Chakraborty and he in turn contacted with Mr Deepayan Sharma Advocate of Jalpaiguri, but for reasons best known to him, the said Mr Sharma did not pick up the Phone call and neither received the call from Mr Tuhin Chatterjee the Authorized Signatory of the Appellant herein.
That finding no other alternative the Authorized Signatory contacted with Mr Kunal Kashyap of that locality on 19th Oct'15 (Monday) a day before ensuing Durga Puja Holiday and requested him to collect the Certified Copy of the Order as well as the entire Order sheet through a local Advocate.
That due to ensuing Puja vacation the Civil Court as well as the Consumer Forum was closed till 28th Oct'15.
That Mr Kunal Kashyap in turn assigned the matter to Mr Jonmajoy Ganguly Advocate of Siliguri on 29th Oct'15 (Thursday) who was able to go to Jalpaiguri DCDRF only on 6th Nov'15 (Friday) that is after 6(six) working days from the date of reopening after the Puja Holidays and he applied for the Certified Copy on 6th Nov'15 and the said Certified Copy of the Order was received by Mr Jonmajoy Ganguly Advocate on 16th Nov'15 and he forwarded the same by Courier to the Regional Office of the Appellant and same was received on 19th Nov'15 (Thursday) and a copy of the forwarding letter dated 17.11.15 issued by Mr Jonmajoy Ganguly and the Notice of Complaint and envelop is annexed herewith and is marked as Annexure C collectively.
Thereafter on going through the Certified Copy of all day to day Orders passed by the Ld DCDRF, Jalpaiguri the Appellant could understand that on 16th June'15 the Complainant and O.P.1 file hajira through Ld. Lawyer, O.P.2 is absent without step and the Ld Trial Forum passed an order that the hearing of the case will proceed ex-parte against O.P.2 (vide order no.10 dt. 11/09/2014).
That for reasons best known to Mr Deepayan Sharma Advocate he neither picked up the phone call neither appeared in this matter on behalf of the Company neither filed the Written Version that was sent to him in his address as intimated by Mr Satyakam Chakraborty Advocate of the Appellant at Kolkata.
That Mr Deepayana Sharma Advocate did not communicate to the Appellant or Mr Satyakam Chakraborty Advocate that he is not willing to represent the Appellant before the Ld Trial Forum, as a result the matter proceeded exparte as against the Appellant.
4. That the Appellant/petitioner is a process driven company and for that before filing the appeal, approval is sought for from the Regional Manager of the Passenger Vehicle Business Unit as well as the DGM (legal) posted at Head Office of the Company at Mumbai and thereafter steps for filing the appeal was taken, as such it took some natural and reasonable time to obtain such approval.
5. That the Appellant/petitioner begs to state that the impugned and final order was passed by the Ld. Forum below sometime on 16.7.2015, and the application for certified copy was filed on 6.11.15 and obtained by the Ld. Lawyer at Jalpaiguri only on 16.11.2015. It needs to be mentioned here that the Statutory period of 30(thirty) days expired on 15.8.2015.
6. That immediately on receiving the plain copy of the Order dated 16.7.15 from the Complainant on 15th Oct'15 the Appellant herein assigned the matter to Mr Asutosh Das Advocate to draft and file the Appeal and same could be finalised only on 23rd Nov'15(Monday) after receiving the certified copy of the entire Order sheet on 19th Nov'15(Thursday).
7. That in the meantime the approval for purchase of Application Fee by pay order was obtained on 20.11.15 and the Appellant herein requested the Ld Advocate, Mr Asutosh Das to purchase the DD/PO from any Nationalised Bank and the Ld Advocate for the Appellant purchased the same on 21st Nov'15 (Saturday).
8. That in the meantime the Appeal was drafted and kept ready on 23rd November'15 but same cannot be affirmed and filed on 24th November'15 due to resolution of the Bar Council of West Bengal.
9. That 25th November'15 being a holiday being Gurunanak's Birthday and Rash Purnima the Appeal cannot be filed and same could only be affirmed and filed on 26th Nov'15."
5. As noted above, by the impugned order the State Commission has held that the Petitioner has failed to make out a sufficient cause for the said inordinate delay and has accordingly dismissed the Application for condonation of delay and resultantly the Appeal as well. Hence, the present Revision Petition.
6. Since the Appeal has been dismissed by the State Commission on the ground of limitation, we are required to consider the question whether or not the State Commission has committed any jurisdictional error in not condoning the said delay in filing the Appeal. Accordingly, we have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner on the said question.
7. Bearing in mind the broad principles laid down in a catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, viz., 'sufficient cause' cannot be construed liberally if negligence, inaction or lack of bonafides are attributable to the party, praying for exercise of such discretion in its favour, and that when a statute provides for a particular period of limitation, it has to be applied with all its rigors, as an unlimited limitation leads to a sense of uncertainty, we are of the view that the State Commission has not committed any jurisdictional error in coming to the conclusion that a case for condonation of the said delay was not made out.
8. In our view, the casualness with which the matter was dealt with by the Petitioner's functionaries is evident not only from the explanation for the period after the receipt of a copy of the final order passed by the District Forum, served in its office by the Complainant, its indifferent attitude towards the case gets compounded by the fact that even after entering appearance before the District Forum, it did not bother to pursue the case with the seriousness it deserved and even failed to file its Written Version contesting the Complaint. Consequently, the Petitioner was proceeded against ex-parte. Further, even after receipt of a copy of the order, passed by the District Forum, on 15.10.2015, the Petitioner took over a month in assigning the matter to an Advocate and obtaining the certified copy of the said order. Having acquired the knowledge about an unfavourable order on receipt of a copy of the same, by which time the statutory period of limitation to file the Appeal had already expired, without wasting further time, the Petitioner could have filed the Appeal, with an application for exemption from filing the certified copy of the said order. The Petitioner's contention that its Counsel was responsible for an adverse order passed by the District Forum setting the proceedings ex-parte against it, in the absence of any explanation from the Counsel concerned and any averment in this regard in the Application, it does not inspire confidence and apparently is an after-thought. The District Forum had passed the final order on 16.07.2015 but the Appeal, which was required to be filed within a period of 30 days from the date of the order as per Section 15 of the Act, was filed only on 26.11.2015, i.e. with an inordinate delay of 91 days. The Petitioner, a big Corporate house, if aggrieved by fastening of liability against it by the District Forum, ought to have been on its toes to contest the same before the Appellate Fora with alacrity, which was not so.
9. In view of the above, no fault can be found with the impugned decision by the State Commission. The decision of the State Commission is also fortified by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Sidgonda Patil Vs. Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 37183 of 2013, decided on 17.12.2013, wherein the Apex Court had refused to condone the delay of even 13 days. We are convinced that condonation of the said delay by the State Commission would have caused further harassment to the Complainant, who was misled by the false representation of fuel efficiency of the vehicle. If the Petitioner was convinced that there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle, it could have collected the vehicle and set the engine right, as directed by the District Forum, as one of the alternate reliefs.
10. Bearing in mind the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority [(2011) 14 SCC 578] to the effect that while deciding an application 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 highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the consumer foras are entertained, we are of the view that the State Commission, for the reasons mentioned in the impugned order, was justified in declining to condone the delay in filing the Appeal and consequently dismissing the same. We do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order, warranting interference in our Revisional Jurisdiction.
9. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is dismissed in limine.
......................J D.K. JAIN PRESIDENT ...................... M. SHREESHA MEMBER