National Consumer Disputes Redressal
M/S. Analytical Technologies Ltd. vs Maneesha Pattan Shetti on 11 March, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 3068 OF 2014 (Against the Order dated 06/01/2014 in Appeal No. 605/2013 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. M/S. ANALYTICAL TECHNOLOGIES LTD. HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT E-67 & 66 RAVI PARK, VASANA ROAD, BARODA- 390001 GUJARAT ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. MANEESHA PATTAN SHETTI FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN, NO-12, 1ST CROSS BALAJI EXTENSION NEAR BADRAPPA LAYOUT, BANGALORE -560094 KARNATAKA ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN, PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mohd. Sulaiman Khan, Advocate For the Respondent :
Dated : 11 Mar 2015 ORDER
1. This Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act") has been filed by M/s Analytical Technologies Ltd., the Opposite Party, against order dated 06.01.2014 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Bangalore (for short "the State Commission") in Appeal No. 605 of 2013. By the impugned order, the State Commission, while holding that order dated 30.11.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bangalore (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint Case No. 1764/2012, preferred by the Complainant, Respondent herein, did not suffer from any perversity or incorrect findings, has dismissed the said Appeal, preferred by the Petitioner herein, on two grounds; firstly that the Appeal was barred by limitation and secondly, the Petitioner was guilty of supplying faulty equipment to the Complainant, Respondent herein, and accordingly there was deficiency of service on its part. The District Forum had held that since the equipment supplied by the Petitioner to the Respondent was faulty, for which the Respondent had to suffer both financially and mentally, there was deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner. Consequently, the District Forum, while allowing the Complaint, directed the Petitioner to refund to the Respondent a sum of ₹7,00,000/- with 12% interest per annum from 20.04.2012, i.e. the date when the equipment was returned, besides ₹10,000/- as compensation and ₹2000/- as litigation costs.
2. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the District Forum, the Petitioner filed Appeal before the State Commission, however, with a delay of 119 days. As noted above, the State Commission has dismissed the Appeal on the ground of limitation as well as on merits. Hence, the present Revision Petition.
3. Leaving aside the merits of the case, we have heard learned counsel for the Petitioner on the question of delay.
4. As noted above, there was a delay of 119 days in filing the Appeal before the State Commission. The Petitioner had sought to explain the said delay by means of his affidavit (page 24 of the paper-book). In paras 3-4 of the said affidavit, the explanation furnished was as under:
"03. I state that I did not have knowledge of the consumer complaint and further I did not know that the impugned judgment and order dated 30-11-2012 came to be passed Ex-parte. I state that our company received the impugned order on 12.01.2013, when we realized that the impugned order came to be passed.
04. I state that subsequent to receipt of the impugned order, I also received a notice of Execution petition directing to appear on 15.02.2013. I state that I immediately contact an advocate at Baroda and sought the legal opinion and we were informed that we had good case on merit and we have an option to prefer ana Appeal before this Honourable Commission. I state that I thereafter contacted an Advocate at Bangalore and requested to verify the above matter and procure the documents. I state that by the time documents could be procured and contact the present counsel some time has lapsed in preferring the above appeal. Thereafter this appeal came to be prepared and finalized the appeal memo. Thus there has been the delay of filing the above appeal.
05. I state that I have good case on merits and in all probabilities likely to succeed as such it is humbly prayed to provide me an opportunity to prosecute the above case on merit by condoning the delay."
5. In our view, the explanation furnished by the Petitioner before the State Commission was wholly unsatisfactory and the State Commission was justified in not condoning the delay in preferring the Appeal. It is true that the District Forum had passed the final order in the Complaint on 30.11.2012, proceeding ex-parte against the Petitioner. Admittedly, the copy of the said order was received by the Petitioner on 12.01.2013. Even thereafter for over a period of one month the Petitioner did not take any action for filing the Appeal before the State Commission. It was only on 15.02.2013, when it received a notice in the Execution proceedings initiated by the Respondent, that it sought a legal opinion into the matter and finally filed the Appeal before the State Commission on 29.04.2013, i.e. after three and a half months from the date of admitted knowledge of the order passed by the District Forum. If earlier the Petitioner had no knowledge about the order passed in the Complaint, bearing in mind the statutory period of 30 days for filing the Appeal, as provided under Section 15 of the Act, after gaining knowledge about the aforesaid order of the District Forum, the Petitioner ought to have acted promptly for filing the Appeal, since it was already barred by limitation.
6. It is pointed out by the office that this Revision Petition is also barred by limitation, as there is a delay of 87 days in filing the same. An application praying for condonation of the said delay has been filed along with the Revision Petition. A crisp explanation furnished in the said application reads as follows:
"Certified copies were received belated due to inadvertence of the counsel who was pursuing the case. Hence, the present counsel received the same belatedly."
7. In our view, the explanation furnished for delay in filing the present Revision Petition is completely vague, misleading and does not inspire any confidence. The Petitioner, against whom there is concurrent finding, imposing certain liability, ought to have acted like a prudent and diligent litigant and its conduct while dealing with pending court matters must show that it was so. However, from the above facts, it is clear that the Petitioner right from the State Commission to this Commission has throughout been negligent in prosecuting its cause. Now, the present Revision Petition, at this belated stage, is yet another attempt to prolong the litigation and to deprive the Complainant from enjoying the fruits of the relief granted by the lower Fora. This is nothing but a sheer harassment to the Complainant, which cannot be permitted.
8. The submission on behalf of the Petitioner that the delay in filing the Appeal and in this Revision Petition deserves to be condoned since it had, prima facie, a good case, which has not been considered on merits by the State Commission, is also stated to be rejected. There is a catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, including in D. Gopinathan Pillai V. State of Kerala & Anr. [(2007) 2 SCC 322], wherein it has been held that inordinate delay in taking recourse to appropriate remedy cannot be condoned on sympathetic grounds.
9. 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, with no order as to costs.
......................J D.K. JAIN PRESIDENT ...................... VINAY KUMAR MEMBER ...................... M. SHREESHA MEMBER