Revision Petition No.2426 of 2016

27th March, 2018.

Petitioner Counsel: Nemo

Cases Cited:
Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) [Para 15]
Balwant Singh Vs. Jagdish Singh & Ors., 2010(6) ALL MR 480 (S.C.)=Civil Appeal no. 1166/2006, Dt. 08.07.2010 [Para 16]
Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 361 [Para 17]
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kailash Devi and Ors., AIR 1994 P&H 45 [Para 18]
R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, 2009 ALL SCR 508=2009 (2) Scale 108 [Para 19]

JUDGMENT

REKHA GUPTA, Presiding Member :- The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 27.07.2012 of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Mumbai ('the State Commission') in First Appeal no.196 of 2012.

2. The facts of the case as per the petitioner/ complainant are that the petitioner had opened a recurring deposit with the respondent no.3/OP no. 3 post office on 24.01.2005 and was to pay Rs.5000/- per month. He alleged that he had deposited Rs.5000/- per month regularly in the post office till the end of 10.12.2009 through respondent no. 4/ OP no. 4, who was the agent of Mahila Pradhan Shetriya Bhachat Yojana. Entries were made by the agent along with the signature of respondent no. 4 in the card no. IEF 0082257. On maturity the petitioner demanded the amount of the said deposited amount, however, the same was not paid to him. He then filed a complaint with the following prayer:

* Complainant's complaint may be kindly be allowed;

* The opponent nos.1 to 4 be ordered that the complainant had opened a recurring deposit account vide no. 2618583 with amount of Rs.5,000/- per month accordingly the total amount comes to Rs.3,00,000/- along with interest after maturity, to be paid to the complainant;

* The compensation be awarded to the complainant to pay a sum of rupees mentioned above with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of application till the date of actual realisation of due amount;

* The cost of the present complaint may awarded from opponent's;

* The opponent's give deficiency in service that after maturity period of recurring deposit amount, opponent's not paid any maturity amount along with interest to the complainant. For this complainant construed to file the present complaint, for that the complainant kindly be awarded by compensation of Rs.15,000/- for the physical and mental harassment for the same; and

* Any other just equitable order be passed in the interest of justice.

3. The respondent nos. 1 to 3/ OP nos. 1 to 3 in their reply have stated that the petitioner had paid the amount of recurring deposit to the agent, i.e., respondent no. 4 who had misappropriated the said amount. The agency of the agent was terminated by the Collector, Solapur. It was further mentioned that for the period of 19 months the amount of Rs.95,000/- was not deposited in the petitioner's account. In fact during the period 2004 to 2009 the agent did not deposit the amount collected from the investors. The agent however made entries in the pass book and put the postal stamp in the pass book to show that the amount had been deposited with the post office. The said agent misappropriated an amount of Rs.19,67,790/- from 472 investors. A complaint had been registered with Sadar Bazar Police Station, Solapur vide CR No. 352 of 2010 and investigation was in progress. It was further averred that the post office cannot be held responsible for the act of the agent. The respondent no. 4 was not an agent or representative of the post office. The petitioner had not deposited 19 instalments due to which the maturity amount could not be paid to the petitioner, hence, prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

4. Respondent no. 4 in her reply had resisted the complaint. According to her, the recurring deposit account was opened in the post office and after depositing the amount, the post office used to put the stamp on the card. In fact the procedure for recurring deposit account had not been followed by the officers of the post office. A false report had been lodged against the agent. She also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Solapur ("the District Forum') vide its order dated 28.06.2011 while allowing the complaint gave the following order:

"The opponent nos. 1 to 3 are individually and jointly directed to pay amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the date 01.01.2010 with interest @ 9% per annum, within 30 days from the date of this order and opponent nos.1 to 3 are individually and jointly to pay Rs.1,000/- towards the cost of the complaint within 30 days".

6. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an MA no. 06 of 2011 before the District Forum for correction in the order. He requested that the District Forum may order payment of maturity amount with interest. The District Forum vide its order dated 17.11.2011, dismissed the MA on the grounds that the District Forum cannot review its own order.

7. The petitioner then filed an appeal before the State Commission with a delay of 143 days. The State Commission vide its order dated 27.07.2012 while dismissing the application for condonation of delay observed as under:

"In the application for condonation of delay, no reason is given to explain the actual delay except making mention to the miscellaneous application for clarification, supra. From the certified copy of the order it could be seen that copy of impugned order was received on 29.06.2011 by the applicant/ appellant. The appeal was filed on 23.12.2011. Therefore, the delay would be 157 days and not 143 days as alleged. In view of decision of the Apex Court in the matter - Rajeev Hitesh Pathak and Ors vs Achyut Kashinath Karekar - 2012 (2) Mh L J 1, the District Forum has no jurisdiction to review the impugned order. The procedure akin to speaking to minutes etc., is unknown to Consumer Fora. It cannot be said that the applicant was prosecuting those proceedings bonafidely. Besides, that entire duration of the delay, supra, is not explained. Under the circumstances, we find the delay is not explained satisfactorily. Holding accordingly, we pass the following order:

Application for condonation of delay, bearing no. MA/ 12/234 stands dismissed. In the result, the appeal no. 196/ 12 is not entertained".

8. Hence, the present revision petition.

9. The present revision petition has been filed with an application for condonation of delay of 1477 days whereas as per the registry the delay is 1171. The reasons given in the application for condonation of delay are as under:

"5. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Mumbai given judgment in First Appeal no. A/ 12/196 and MA no.12/ 234 on 27.07.2012. The original documents/ certified copies are lost while shifting the house. Therefore, appellant has obtained by way of online/ net on 07.05.2016. The applicant filed appeal by post on 12.08.2016. For filing this appeal the delay of 1477 days caused. The reasons for the causing delay, the appellant was engaged in the work of marriage ceremony of his son and thereafter the Civil as well as Criminal proceedings between applicant, his son and daughter in law of applicant and the litigations are till continues. The delay may kindly be condoned for filing the appeal. The applicant has never caused delay voluntarily."

10. None appeared on behalf of the petitioner on 17 th January 2018 and today even on the second call, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner. However, the written argument has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. As no one has appeared on behalf of the petitioner and since the petition was filed on 18.08.2016, we have decided to dispose of the case based on the documents on record.

11. We find the reasons given for the delay of 143 days before the State Commission are as under:

4. The applicant filed Miscellaneous Application no. 6 of 2011 District Forum, Solapur and forum passed order in ME 6 of 2011 on 17.11.2011 and give permission for filing the appeal without delay application. The certified copy on MA no. 6 of 2011 and received by applicant on 22.11.2011 and thereafter applicant has engaged in the work of his son's marriage ceremony therefore applicant could not file the appeal in time with forum. Its seems there is a delay of 143 days in filing the appeal.

5. District Forum Solapur gave judgment in complaint no. 450 of 2010 on 28.06.2011 on 28.06.2011. The certified copy order received by applicant on 29.06.2011 the last date of filing the appeal 29.07.2011. The applicant filed appeal on 20.12.2011 for filing this appeal the delay 143 days caused. The reasons for the causing delay. The delay may be condoned for filing the appeal. The applicant never causes delay voluntarily."

12. The petitioner has given almost the same reasons for the delay before the State Commission as also to this Commission that is his pre-occupation with his son's marriage ceremony.

13. We find that even after dismissal of his appeal before the State Commission, the petitioner was not vigilant enough to file this revision petition on time and has filed it after an inordinate delay of 1477/ 1171 days. The only reason given for the delay is that he was engaged in the work of marriage of his son and thereafter with the civil and criminal proceedings between the applicant, his son and his daughter in law. The petitioner has failed to give any cogent day to day reasons to justify the inordinate delay of 1477/1171 days in filing the present revision petition. He has been following the matter in a very casual and careless manner.

14. At the same time, it is also well settled that "sufficient cause" with regard to condonation of delay in each case, is a question of fact.

15. In the matter of Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), the Apex Court has highlighted the object of Consumer Protection Act particularly expeditious and in expensive remedy to the consumers.

"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".

16. In Balwant Singh Vs. Jagdish Singh & Ors., (Civil Appeal no. 1166 of 2006) : [2010(6) ALL MR 480 (S.C.)], 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]".

17. 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."

18. Similarly in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., vs Kailash Devi and 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."

19. In R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, 2009 (2) Scale 108 : [2009 ALL SCR 508], 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."

20. We are of the view that the appellant has failed to give sufficient cause by giving cogent reasons and justification to condone the inordinate delay of 1477/1177 days. In view of the above discussion, the revision petition deserves to be dismissed on limitation alone.

21. Further, we find no jurisdictional error or material irregularity in the impugned order which may call for interference in exercise of powers under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The revision petition is dismissed.

Revision Petition.