AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This revision is directed against the order of the State Commission dated 10.3.2017 in first appeal No.1249/2015 whereby the State Commission dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner/opposite party against the order of the District Forum, Varanasi.
The appeal, however, has been filed after the expiry of period of limitation with a delay of 47 days. The petitioner has moved IA/11640/2017 for condonation of delay in filing of the revision petition.
Before adverting to the submissions of the petitioner it is pertinent to note that consumer compliant in this case was filed way back in 2013 in relation to the failure of the opposite party to replace the defective pressure cooker sold to the complainant.
The District Forum on consideration of the pleadings and the evidence, allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party/petitioner to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.980/- as value of the cooker, besides compensation of Rs.3,000/- was also awarded alongwith litigation cost of Rs.2,000/-
The opposite parties instead of complying with the order chose to file an appeal. The State Commission vide impugned order concurred with the finding of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal. The petitioner instead of complying with the order has opted to file this revision petition that too after the expiry of period of limitation.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the delay in filing of revision petition is unintentional. Actually it took place because of bureaucratic procedure involving taking of legal opinion and getting permission from the headquarters of petitioner-company to file the revision petition.
The law relating to the condonation of delay is well settled. In Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361 , it has been 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".
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.
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."
When we consider the explanation in the light of the aforesaid judgment, we do not find the explanation for delay in filing of revision petition to be satisfactory. Otherwise also, the amount awarded to the petitioner is too meagre. The opposite party appears to be taking advantage of its financial clout in trying to defeat the benefit of concurrent finding of the Fora below. Therefore, we do not find any reason to condone the delay. Application is accordingly dismissed. As a consequence, the revision petition is also dismissed as barred by limitation.