Deepak Shukla vs Sheikh Farid Automobiles Ltd.

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Deepak Shukla challenging the order dated 5th February 2016 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (in short 'the State Commission') in appeal No. 513 of 2015.

The brief facts relevant for disposal of the present revision petition are that the respondent placed an order with the appellant for supplying furniture for his showroom. As per the quotation supplied by the petitioner, an amount of Rs.16,30,000 was paid by the respondent complainant to the petitioner. The petitioner supplied the furniture for Rs.14,27,653/-. The respondent complainant found that certain items mentioned in the quotation were not supplied and the value of such items was Rs.2,03,861/-. The complainant further found that furniture worth Rs.1,60,000/- was damaged. The complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum. The petitioner opposite party resisted the complaint mainly on the ground that the complainant was to supply C form, however, the same was not supplied and therefore the opposite party had to charge 12.75% tax. The District Forum, however, reached to the conclusion that C form was supplied to the opposite party by the complainant and therefore the District Forum allowed the complaint and ordered the petitioner opposite party to refund Rs.2,03,861 along with interest at the rate 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e.14. 01.2014 till realization. A compensation of Rs.5,000 and cost of litigation as Rs.3000 was also ordered.

Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the petitioner opposite party preferred an appeal before the State Commission which was dismissed by the State Commission on the ground of limitation vide its order dated 5th February 2016.

Hence the present revision petition.

Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused record. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the delay in filing the appeal before the State Commission happened due to the fact that an employee received the order from the learned counsel of the petitioner but that employee never informed the petitioner. That employee has resigned from the firm. Hence the management could not know about the decision of the District Forum in time and the appeal could also not be filed in time. The delay in filing the appeal was only about 100 days and looking at the merits of the case of the petitioner, the State Commission should have condoned the delay in the interest of justice. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Bank of India versus Jagbir Singh, Civil Appeal No.3645 of 2015, decided on April 16, 2015 where the delay of 230 days has been condoned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in filing the revision petition before this Commission.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent complainant stated that the State Commission has thoroughly analyzed the facts given in the application for condonation of delay and has found that the facts are not corroborated. When there is a litigation pending against the firm, the management of the firm should have been more cautious when the case was contested by the firm. If the order of the District Forum had reached to the employee of the firm, then it cannot be said that the management of the firm was unaware of the order of the District Forum. Hence, the State Commission has rightly rejected the application for condonation of delay and consequently the appeal of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the complainant relied upon the judgment of this Commission in First Appeal No. 22 of 2015, M/s. Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Jatinder Pal Singh, decided on 05.12.2018 where this commission has not condoned the delay of 90 days in filing the appeal against the order of the State Commission.

I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by both the learned counsel for the parties and examined record. A period of 30 days is prescribed for filing the appeal and there is a delay of hundred days in filing the appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission has not found the reason given by the petitioner for delay in filing the appeal as sufficient cause for condoning the delay. In fact, the State Commission has recorded that no employment record of Ishwar Singh the employee of the petitioner has been filed along with the application for condonation of delay. The date of resignation is also not mentioned in the application for condonation of delay. It is also mentioned in the order of the State Commission that the learned counsel for the petitioner promised to place all the records before the State Commission, however, no records were placed. Under these circumstances, the State Commission has rejected the application for condonation of delay. The observations of the State Commission in this regard clearly point out that only a case was made out by the petitioner opposite party for getting the delay condoned by the State Commission. The special period of limitation for filing the appeal is prescribed in the Consumer Production Act 1986 for speedy disposal of consumer disputes as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) 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."

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, has held the following:

"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."

From the above observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 (supra) it is clear that even if sufficient cause is shown, the court may not condone the delay on the basis of the overall case content. In the present case, the case content is such that it does not justify further litigation between the parties. A decision on condonation of delay depends on the facts of the case, specific circumstances leading to delay and broad day-to-day explanation and these will be specific in each case, therefore the decision in Central Bank of India versus Jagbir Singh (supra) cannot be applied in the present case.

On the basis of the above discussion, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order dated 5th February 2016 which calls for any interference from this Commission. Accordingly, the revision petition No. 1802 of 2016 is dismissed.