National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Pinaka Radha Krishna vs Dasmesha Agricultural Industries Pvt. ... on 9 May, 2017
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1044 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 19/01/2017 in Appeal No. 2166/2014 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh) 1. PINAKA RADHA KRISHNA S/O. SAMBAIAH, R/O. H.NO. 6-14, LAXMI NAGAR VILLAGE PAPANNAPET MANDAL, MEDAK TELANGANA ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. DASMESHA AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. & 2 ORS. REP BY ITS MANAGER, RAIKOT ROAD, MALERKOTLA, DISTRICT-SANGRUR PUNJAB-148023 2. LAKSHMI SAI TRACTORS & IMPLEMENTS REP BY RAJESH YADAV, C/O. MAHENDRA TWO WHEELER SHOW ROOM, BEERAMGUDA KAMAN RAMACHANDRAPURAM, DISTRICT-MEDAK-500032 TELANGANA 3. SRINIVAS AREA MANAGER OF LAXMI SAI TRACTORS & IMPLEMENT, AUTO NAGAR, TOWN AND DISTRICT-MEDAK TELANGANA ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MRS. REKHA GUPTA,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : MR. SADINENI RAVI KUMAR For the Respondent :
Dated : 09 May 2017 ORDER
REKHA GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER
The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 11th January 2017 of the Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad ('the State Commission') in FAIA no. 2166 of 2014 in FASR no. 6050 of 2014.
2. The facts of the case as per the petitioner/ complainant are that the petitioner had borrowed a loan of Rs.18,00,000/- from the District Co-operative Central Bank, Papannapet, Medak District to purchase a harvester of 75 HP with 4 Cylinder by paying margin money of Rs.6,00,000/- and purchased the same on 22.03.2012 in his name and that also purchased another harvester of 105 HP with 6 Cylinders in the name of his son Guru Prasad from the opposite party no. 2 which were manufactured by respondent no.1. The respondent no. 3 is the Area Manager of respondent no.2. Thereafter, as per the petitioner initially he was allotted TR no. AP 23 TN TR 6897 to his harvester but later on when he approached Deputy Transport Commissioner, Medak for obtaining permanent registration, it was rejected on 13.09.2012 on the ground that the chassis number of the vehicle was not tallying with the temporary registration papers and that the engine number was not punched on the engine and that the number of cylinders and wheel base and tyre size were also differing with the contents of the said papers. The petitioner has also alleged that despite notice being issued to the respondents, they did not submit the correct documents to the Deputy Transport Commissioner causing hardship to him on account of non-registration of the vehicle in his name. The petitioner has further alleged that on account of deficiency in service, on the part of the respondents, the petitioner has suffered mental agony apart from monetary loss as he could not use the vehicle for want of registration. On these counts he prayed to direct the respondents to submit the correct documents of the vehicle to the District Transport Commissioner, Medak at Sangareddy and to award Rs.16,80,000/- towards monetary loss of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation, Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages with costs.
3. The respondent no. 1 has filed written version and opposed the case on the grounds, that the petitioner was not only an agriculturist but also a businessman and that he had got the vehicle inspected through the motor vehicle inspector, Medak without notice to respondent no. 1 and approached this Forum with enormous delay after using the vehicle roughly for commercial purpose. The respondent no. 1 has specifically contended that the errors pointed out by the registration authority in the TR papers of the vehicle only occurred on account of a typographical mistake on the invoice and that the petitioner without approaching the respondents, filed the present case with delay of one year to make wrongful gain with false allegations. Respondent no. 1 has prayed for dismissal of the case with costs.
4. The written version filed by the respondent nos. 2 and 3 are also on the similar lines with that of the written version of the respondent no. 1 in opposing the petitioner's claim.
5. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Medak at Sangareddy ('the District Forum) vide its order dated 22.05.2014 while allowing the complaint observed as under:
"The specific defence of the opposite nos.1 to 3 is that the complainant purchased a harvester of 75 HP with 4 Cylinder engine from the opposite party no.2 but by mistake the particulars of it were wrongly noted on the invoice. Therefore, the opposite parties have expressed their readiness and willingness to correct the said typographical mistake in the material papers given to the complainant. The office copy of reply notice in this regard sent by the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 to the complainant's legal notice. Despite said facts, evidently the complainant never approached the opposite party no. 2 but filed the present case and that took after a considerable time. In the circumstances there is no force in complainant's claiming alleged loss, compensation and damages amounting to Rs.19,80,000/- and that even otherwise the same is without any proof. Therefore, we hold that he is not entitled for the same.
However, the complainant is entitled for the relief of a direction to the opposite parties to handover him the material papers with correct specifications of the vehicle purchase by him from the opposite party no. 2. In fact the opposite parties are also prepared for it even as per their counters and reply notice. In these circumstances we hold that the complainant is not entitled for any costs.
In view of the aforesaid discussion the case of the complainant is fit to be allowed in part. The point is answered accordingly.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite parties to issue material sale papers with correct specifications of the vehicle purchased by the complainant from the opposite party no. 2. The parties shall bear their own costs."
6. Dissatisfied by the order of the District Forum, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission for grant of damages, interest, compensation for loss and costs.. The appeal has been filed with a delay of 137 days. The State Commission vide its order dated 19.01.2017 while dismissing the appeal observed as under:
"5) In the instant appeal, the Forum below passed orders on 22.05.2014 in C.C.No.3 of 2013 and the same was dispatched to either of the parties on 28.05.2014 vide dispatch No.253. From the perusal of operative portion of the orders of forum below which are impugned under this appeal, it is evident that the time granted for compliance is (30) days.
6) Admittedly, the present application along with the appeal is filed on 11.11.2014. If really the Petitioner is interested in pursuing the matter, nothing prevented him from filing the appeal within 30 days. No plausible reasons are assigned as to what made the Petitioner to keep silent for such a long time. This shows the negligence and callousness on the part of the Petitioner in showing disrespect to the orders of the court.
7) The cause shown for occurrence of delay is on medical grounds. The petitioner claiming for condoning the delay on medical grounds stating that he was suffering from severe back pain and took treatment with local doctors for about two months and thereafter he underwent kidney surgery on 05.09.2014 and discharged on 08.09.2014 and further on 20.09.2014 again the doctor removed the pipe attached to him and after 20 days he came back to his native place and he was bed rest as per doctors advise, and prior to that, he met with an accident at his fields, due to which, there was an amputation to his left 3 toes of left leg. When that being the claim, there was no proof that the complainant was suffering from severe back pain and took treatment with local doctors for about two months as pointed out by the counsel for the respondent? Further, the petitioner underwent kidney surgery after three months of the passing of the impugned order. In addition to that, he did not mention whether during the statutory period his left three toes of left leg were amputated. In overall view, there is no medical ground on the side of the petitioner to condone the delay. When abnormal delay of 137 days is sought to be condoned, necessarily some cogent evidence has to be filed warranting taking cognizance of the matter. It cannot be considered in a routine and mechanical manner. This explanation is not a 'sufficient cause' and no other reasonable ground was pleaded. Hence, the cause shown by the Petitioner is not reasonable and plausible.
8) The Petitioner was not diligent enough in pursuing the matter and kept quiet and slept for months together and had come with the present application seeking to condone the whopping delay of 137 days. No bonafides are shown to accept the version of the Petitioner/Appellant to condone the abnormal, exorbitant and whopping delay of 137 days in filing the appeal. The cause for the delay shown by the Petitioner appears to be superficial without any cogent evidence during the stipulated period. This Commission do not see any reasonable ground to accept the version of the Petitioner.
9) It is to be mentioned that in an application for condonation of delay, one cannot adopt a hyper technical approach and has to follow a rational and pragmatic approach rather than pedantic while examining explanation about "every day's delay". Having said that, it has to be kept in view that "sufficient cause" for condoning the delay being a question of fact, each case has to be examined in the light of its own peculiar facts and circumstances. In R.B.Ramlingam Vs. R.B.Bhavaneshwari, 2009 (2) Scale 108, the Apex Court has observed thus:
"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."
13) The parties seeking relief have to satisfy the court that he/she has sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the time prescribed and the explanation has to cover the entire period of delay. A litigant cannot be permitted to take away a right which has accrued to his adversary by lapse of time. Proof of 'sufficient cause' is a condition precedent for the exercise of discretion of jurisdiction vested in this Commission under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act. The discretion conferred on this Commission is a judicial discretion and is exercised to advance justice and even if there is a strong cause for acceptance of the appeal that would not be a ground for condoning the delay. Consumer Protection Act provides for speedy redressal of consumer disputes. It follows that the delay cannot be allowed to occur in a routine way and 'sufficient cause' should be made out with specific reasons supported by material; and that the discretion for entertaining the appeals filed beyond the prescribed period will not be exercised in a light and routine manner.
14) We may also state that the petitioner should not be denied the right accrued to him on expiry of limitation provided for to prefer an appeal. What is required is that the explanation has to be reasonable, plausible and believable. Mere explanation without supporting material is not sufficient for condoning the delay in favour of applicant. If he does not satisfy the ingredients of Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and that it does not reflect 'sufficient cause', then the application deserves no consideration. When consistently rigmarole facts are pleaded without any justification or proof, the delay of 137 days cannot be condoned.
15) In the result, the petition is dismissed consequently the appeal is rejected but in the circumstances, no costs".
7. Hence, the present revision petition.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He contended that the State Commission has erred in dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation even though there was sufficient cause for the delay. The State Commission ought to have appreciated that the petitioner was a chronic patient and has suffered amputation of three left leg toes, suffers from back pain and underwent kidney surgery which prevented him from filing the appeal within the limitation period.
9. I have gone through the record. In the application for condonation of delay before the State Commission the following reasons has been given for the delay, which reads as under:
"Meanwhile I was suffering from severe back pain and took treatment with local doctors for about two months, finally on the advice of the doctor, and well-wishers and friends. I was admitted as in patient in Hyderabad Kidney Hospita, Malakpet, Hyderabad, on 03.09.2014 and I underwent a kidney surgery on 05.09.2014 and discharged on 08.09.2014 and further on 20.09.2014, again the Doctor removed the pipe attached to me and after 20 days. I came back to my native place. I was on bed rest as per doctors advise, and prior to that, I met with an accident at my fields, due to which there was an amputation to my left three toes of left leg. Because of all these ailments, I was ridden for a long period. Hence, I could not contact my counsel for further proceedings. Therefore, the delay of 137 days caused in filing the present appeal".
10. As per the medical record placed on file the surgery on the left foot was conducted in March 2013, more than a year before the impugned order of the District Forum was pronounced on 22.05.2014. Further the patient underwent left PCNL and DJ Stenting on 05.09.2014, for which he was hospitalised from 03.09.2014 to 08.09.2014 in the Hyderabad Kidney and Laparoscopic Centre. It is apparent from this that he had been admitted for the said operation well after the period of limitation. The petitioner has failed to give any cogent reasons for the day to-day delay of 137 days in filing the appeal before the State Commission.
11. The petitioners have failed to provide 'sufficient cause' for the delay 137 days in filing the appeal before the State Commission. This view is further supported by the following authorities:
12. The apex court in the case of In Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), it has been held that:
"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".
13. In Balwant Singh Vs. Jagdish Singh & Ors., (Civil Appeal no. 1166 of 2006), decided by the Apex Court on 08.07.2010 it was held:
"The party should show that besides acting bonafide, it had taken all possible steps within its power and control and had approached the Court without any unnecessary delay. The test is whether or not a cause is sufficient to see whether it could have been avoided by the party by the exercise of due care and attention. [Advanced Law Lexicon, P. Ramanatha Aiyar, 3rd Edition, 2005]".
14. 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."
15. Similarly, in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kailash Devi & Ors. AIR 1994 Punjab and Haryana 45, it has been laid down that;
"There is no denying the fact that the expression sufficient cause should normally be construed liberally so as to advance substantial justice but that would be in a case where no negligence or inaction or want of bona fide is imputable to the applicant. The discretion to condone the delay is to be exercised judicially i.e. one of is not to be swayed by sympathy or benevolence."
16. 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."
17. In view of the above, I find no jurisdictional or legal error or misrepresentation of facts has been shown to us which calls for interference in the exercise of powers under Section 21 (b) of Act. The order of the State Commission does not call for any interference nor does it suffer from any infirmity or erroneous exercise of jurisdiction or material irregularity. Thus, the present revision petition is dismissed.
...................... REKHA GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER