Indus Motor Company Pvt. Ltd. vs Iqbal And Others

V.K.Jain, Presiding Member

These Revision Petitions are directed against the order of the State Commission dated 06.09.2018, whereby the appeals preferred by the petitioner against the order of the District Forum were dismissed as barred by limitation.

Three separate Consumer Complaints were instituted against the petitioner company on the allegations that their employee Mr. Ali who later committed suicide, had taken cash advance from them for sale of pre-owned cars to them and thereafter, neither the cars were delivered nor the amounts which he had received from the complainants while working in the pre-owned cars segment of the showroom of the petitioner company, were refunded.

The complaints were resisted by the petitioner company which denied having received any amount from the complainants.

The District Forum having allowed the Consumer Complaints and having directed refund of the amount alleged to have been paid by the complainants to the respondents through Mr. Ali, the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of three separate appeals being Appeals No.296/2014, 297/2013 & 298/2014. The said appeals were dismissed by the State Commission vide its order dated 27.02.2017 on the ground that the appeals were not in proper form. The aforesaid order dated 27.02.2017, was not challenged by the petitioner company either before this Commission or before any other Forum. Rather, three fresh appeals being Appeal No.356/2018, 357/2018 and 358/2018 were filed by the petitioner company on 08.06.2018 challenging the same order of the District Forum. The appeals having been dismissed as barred by limitation, the petitioner company is before this Commission.

The question involved in these petitions is as to whether there was sufficient cause condoning the delay of more than one year in institution of the appeals no.356/2018, 357/2018 & 358/2018 before the concerned State Commission. The petitioner had filed applications seeking condonation of delay in filing the said appeals. The application, to the extent it is relevant, reads as under:

For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit it is humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Commission may be pleased to condone the delay of 465 days in preferring this appeal or the petitioner will have to suffer irreparable injury loss and hardships.

The applications were supported by an affidavit of Ms. Deepa Rajendran, Legal Manager of the petitioner company. The said affidavit, to the extent it is relevant, reads as under:

The aforesaid appeal was dismissed of by the Hon'ble Commission on 27/2/2017 as the same was not in proper form.

The counsel who was entrusted with the case did not convey the facts to the appellant company hence remained without proper information.

The petitioner came to know on 09/04/2018, that the National forum has dismissed the RP No.2840/2012 filed against the order in First Appeal No.581/2011 in a similar and connected case.

Since then the petitioner is verifying to find the position of appeal no.297/2014 and learned that it is dismissed as stated above. Hence a delay of 465 days occurred in preferring this appeal.

It would thus be seen that the petitioner had sought condonation of delay of more than one year and three months in institution of the appeals solely on the ground that the counsel who had been entrusted with the previously instituted appeals, had not conveyed the facts to the petitioner company. No affidavit of the advocate who was entrusted with the previously instituted appeals, was filed alongwith the application. In fact, even the name of the advocate was not given. I asked the learned counsel for the petitioner company as to whether any complaint had been made by the petitioner company to the concerned Bar Council against the advocate who allegedly failed to inform the petitioner of the dismissal of their previously instituted appeals vide order dated 27.02.2017. The learned counsel fairly submits that no action against the advocate has been initiated. In these circumstances, it would be difficult to accept the plea taken by the petitioner company.

As per the practice of every State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, a copy each of the order passed by the said Commission is sent to the each of the parties. Therefore, as per the usual practice, a copy of the order dated 17.02.2017 would have been sent by the State Commission to the petitioner company. The learned counsel for the petitioner company submits that no copy of the said order dated 27.02.2017 was received by the petitioner from the State Commission. However, I find no such averment either in the application or in the affidavit which the petitioner had filed before the State Commission while seeking condonation of delay in institution of the second set of appeals.

Ordinarily, it would be the endeavor of every Court/Forum to decide a matter on merit instead of dismissing it on the ground of limitation. But, when the delay is abnormal and no logical explanation is forthcoming for condoning such an abnormal delay, it would be a travesty of justice to condone the delay particularly when the order which is sought to be challenged by way of an appeal, came to be passed years before the appeals were instituted. In the present case, the orders by the District Forum came to be passed in December 2013. The second set of appeals before the State Commission were filed in June 2018, after about 4½ years of the District Forum having passed the order which the petitioner company wanted to assail before the State Commission. It has now been more than six years from the date on which the Consumer Complaints were decided by the District Forum. Considering all the facts and circumstances including (i) the extent of the delay, (ii) the failure to give a convincing ground for c/delay and (iii) the time lag between the order of the District Forum and institution of the second set of appeals, I am not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the State Commission, in exercise of the revisional powers of this Commission u/s 21 of the Consumer Protection Act. The Revision Petitions are therefore, dismissed.