National Consumer Disputes Redressal
N.U. Azam vs Postal Department & 2 Ors. on 23 January, 2017
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 3176 OF 2016 (Against the Order dated 12/01/2016 in Appeal No. 765/2012 of the State Commission Madhya Pradesh) 1. N.U. AZAM S/O. SHRI E.F. HANIFI, R/O. H-22, GANDHI NAGAR, GWALIOR MADHYA PRADESH ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. POSTAL DEPARTMENT & 2 ORS. THROUGH POST MASTER, INDIAN POSTAL DEPARTMENT, POST OFFICE AT LASHKAR CITY, SANJAY COMPLEX, JAYENDRA GANJ, GWALIOR MADHYA PRADESH 2. INDIAN POSTAL DEPARTMENT, THROUGH ITS POST MASTER, POST OFFICE AT RAILWAY STATION GWALIOR MADHYA PRADESH 3. UMRAO SINGH RANA, POST MAN LASHKAR CITY POST OFFICE, SANJAY COMPLEX, JAYANDRA GANJ, GWALIOR MADHYA PRADESH ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE,PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. ANUP K THAKUR,MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Nitin Bhardwaj, Advocate For the Respondent :
Dated : 23 Jan 2017 ORDER This revision is directed against the order of the State Commission, M.P. dated 12.1.2016 in first appeal No.765/2012 whereby the State Commission partly allowed the appeal preferred against the dismissal of the consumer complaint and directed the respondents/opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the appellant besides Rs.3,000/- was awarded as cost. The revision petition has been filed after inordinate delay of 198 days. The petitioner has therefore moved application for condonation of delay
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the delay in filing of the revision petition is unintentional. Actually the impugned order was passed on 12.1.2016 and certified copy of the same was delivered on 18.1.2016. It is contended that during the relevant period some renovation work was going on in the office of the petitioner's counsel Shri Hemant Sharma, Advocate and because of shifting of the record etc. the file got misplaced and because of that reason the revision petition could not be filed in time. The file was located in 3rd week of October, 2016. Thereafter, the petitioner visited Delhi and filed the instant revision petition.
3. We are not convinced explanation given by the petitioner. The explanation for delay is detailed in para-3 of the application for condonation of delay which is reproduced as under: -
"That there is some delay in filing the present petition. The impugned order was passed on 12.1.2016 and the certified copy of the same was delivered on 18.1.2016. The counsel for petitioner Shri Hemant Sharma, Advocate office located at Gwalior, M.P. and the case paper book of the instant case was misplaced during renovation of his office in the last week of February, 2016 and could not be delivered to the petitioner in time. The petitioner tried to approach local counsel at Bhopal to get certified copies of his case and the said counsel through assured to get the said copies, but however, no proper help was given to him in this regard. The case file of the matter could be traced out only in the third week of October, 2016 from the office of Shri Hemant Sharma, Advocate. The petitioner thereafter came to Delhi in the last week of October, 2016 and approached the present counsel who took some time to draft the instant petition and filing the same without much delay."
4. On reading of the above, it is clear that on one hand the petitioner is claiming that certified copy of the impugned order was delivered on 18.1.2016. In the same breath it is pleaded that the file was misplaced sometime in last week of February, 2016. The petitioner had been approaching the local counsel Shri Hemant Sharma to get the certified copy of the case and said counsel assured that he would get the certified copy. It is not clearly mentioned on which date(s) the petitioner approached his counsel Hemant Sharma and on which date complainant was told about misplacement of file. It is not mentioned in the application as to when the complainant was told that counsel has obtained certified copy.
5. In view of the above, it is clear that the explanation is an afterthought and figment of imagination of the counsel for the petitioner. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, has observed as under: -
"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".
6. 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.
7. 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."
8. In view of the above discussion and the settled position in law, we are not inclined to condone the inordinate delay of 198 days in filing of the revision petition. Application is accordingly dismissed. As a consequence, revision petition is also dismissed as barred by limitation.
......................J AJIT BHARIHOKE PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... ANUP K THAKUR MEMBER