Lal Babu Mahto vs Rajeev Ranjan

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Lal Babu Mahto against the order dated 25.08.2015 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jharkhand, (in short 'the State Commission') passed in First Appeal No.206 of 2009.

Brief facts of the case are that on 10.10.2003 the petitioner and the respondent entered into an agreement for the purchase of one Semi-Automatic Injection Moulding Machine with all accessories on payment of Rs.1,60,000/-(rupees one lakh sixty thousand only). However, the petitioner started facing the following problems with regard to the said machine and with regard to deficiency in service provided by the respondent:

"Raw material was not supplied by the respondent- the said machine was of low standard; the respondent had promised that the said machine would work at 220 volt electric supply but it was found out by the petitioner that the said machine does not operate at that voltage supply; the respondent had also promised to the petitioner that the said machine offers double point production, but the petitioner found out that the said machine only gives single point production."

In the month of February, 2005, the petitioner made several complaints to the respondent with regard to the said machine. However, the respondent stated that he shall neither deliver the raw materials nor refund the amount of the said machine. On 29.11.2005, the petitioner was constrained to file a consumer complaint being complaint case no.246 of 2005, before District Consumer Disputes Redressal forum, Ranchi, (in short 'the District Forum') raising all the issues in the said machine and claiming a total sum of Rs.3,10,000/- (rupees three lakh ten thousand only) towards the cost of said machine and compensation for the loss in his business due to deficiency in goods provided and of service on part of the respondent. On 12.12.2007, the District Forum, Ranchi passed an order dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioner. On 09.07.2009, the petitioner preferred first appeal before the Jharkhand State Commission.

On 28.12.2011, the State Commission allowed the appeal of the petitioner and directed that the petitioner be refunded the amount of the said machine along with Rs.20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand only) as compensation towards mental agony, loss of earning with interest @8% from 01.01.2006 till realization. On 15.04.2013, the respondent filed a revision petition before this Commission, being revision petition No.1375 of 2013 along with an application for condonation of delay, seeking to set aside the order dated 28.12.2011 passed by the State Commission. On 29.06.2015, this Commission allowed the revision petition No.1375 of 2013 and the matter was remanded back to the State Commission to decide the matter on merit as well as on the aspect of delay. On 25.08.2015, the State Commission in first appeal no.206 of 2009 dismissed the appeal of the petitioner without hearing the petitioner.

Hence the present revision petition.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at the admission stage. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the State Commission has not heard the petitioner and on the basis of the arguments of the respondent, the State Commission has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant. Learned counsel mentioned that the petitioner has a very strong case on merit, however, the State Commission has not given any opportunity to the petitioner to put forward his case before the State Commission. Furthermore, the learned counsel stated that there is a delay of 703 days in filing the present revision petition as the petitioner could not get the information regarding impugned order passed by the State Commission as no free copy was sent by the State Commission to the petitioner. It was requested that the delay may be condoned and revision petition be allowed.

I have gone through the record and have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is seen from the record that the State Commission has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the District Forum on the ground of limitation as well as on merits. The State Commission has recorded that there was a delay of 512 days in filing the appeal against the order of the District Forum. The State Commission has also examined the appeal on merits, however, the appeal has been dismissed on merit as well. The State Commission has recorded following in this order:-

"1. On 07.08.2015, the following order was passed by this Commission.

"As per the order dated 29.06.2015 passed by Hon'ble National Commission in R.P.No.1375/13, Sri Lal Babu Mahto appears in person and on behalf of Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Vakalatnama is being filed by Mr. Rohit.

Mr. Lal Babu Mahto is directed to file an extra copy of the brief including limitation petition by 10.08.2008, when Mr. Rohit may receive it.

As prayed by Mr. Rohit two weeks time is allowed for filing reply to the limitation petition as well as written notes of argument and further documents on merits, if any.

It is made clear that ex-parte order may be passed against none appearing party on the next date.

Put up for hearing on limitation and merits on 25.08.2015."

On 25.08.2015, the State Commission has recorded that nobody appears for the appellant. As the previous order dated 07.08.2015 of the State Commission was already clear that matter will be heard even if one of the parties does not appear on 25.08.2015. The appellant chose not to appear before the State Commission due to reasons best known to the appellant. In these circumstances, as per order dated 07.08.2015 the State Commission went ahead and heard the other party and decided the appeal. I do not see any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order of the State Commission in this regard and it is wrong to say that the appellant was not given an opportunity of hearing before the State Commission.

Registry has reported that there is a delay of 703 days in filing the present revision petition. Application for condonation of delay mentions the following:-

"2. It is submitted that the learned State Commission after hearing the arguments on behalf of respondent and without hearing any arguments on behalf of the petitioner, dismissed the complaint of the petitioner vide impugned order dated 25.08.2015. However, no copy of the impugned order was supplied to the petitioner. In April, 2017, the petitioner visited the Hon'ble State Commission to enquire about his matter and he was informed that the same had been dismissed. Accordingly, the petitioner applied for the copy of the impugned order on 10.04.2017, and the said copy was received by the petitioner on 02.05.2017.

Vide letter dated 27.05.2017, the petitioner approached the office of Jharkhand High Court Legal Aid Committee, Ranchi seeking legal aid. Vide letter dated 13.06.2017, the said office informed the petitioner that he may approach the concerned authority for the same.

That on 16.06.2017, the petitioner wrote a letter to the National Legal Service Authority, Delhi seeking legal assistance for pursuing his matter in this Hon'ble National Commission. On 13.09.2017, the counsel was marked by the Delhi State Legal Service Authority, New Delhi to assess whether any case is being made out on the documents of the petitioner. That upon assessment the present counsel sought for more documents from the petitioner which were received by the counsel on 23.09.2017. Immediately, thereafter the counsel sent the documents for translation and typing, and prepared the captioned petition. The same is now being filed now after a total delay of 770 days. The delay, thus, is bona fide and genuine and the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss in case the same is not condoned. The delay is neither wilful nor deliberate."

From the above application for condonation of delay, it is clear that the petitioner had himself filed the appeal and therefore, he was to be vigilant in pursuing the appeal. First of all, he did not appear before the State Commission on 25.08.2015 whereas the State Commission has made it clear vide its order dated 07.08.2015 that whosoever party would be present on the next date of hearing 25.08.2015,he will be heard and the matter will be decided. The petitioner chose not to be present on 25.08.2015. Even if the petitioner was not present on 25.08.2015, but had he been vigilant, he would have pursued with the State Commission within a month or so to find out what happened to his appeal on the date fixed i.e. 25.08.2015. He did not bother to find out the order of 25.08.2015. He has not given any account of his endeavour made from the date of the impugned order till April, 2017. Moreover, in the application for condonation of delay, the petitioner has not disclosed the source of his information i.e. wherefrom he got the information in April, 2017 about the order passed by the State Commission. Clearly, this gap from 25.08.2015 till April, 2017 is not explained in the application for condonation of delay. Further, delay has also occurred due to petitioner demanding the legal aid from different sources. Even if one leaves the period spent in asking for the legal aid, the period of about two years from August, 2015 till April, 2017 is not explained and therefore, no benefit can be given to the petitioner in this regard. Special periods of limitation have been prescribed in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for speedy disposal of consumer disputes. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) has laid down that;

"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."

Decision of Anshul Aggarwal (Supra) has been reiterated in CicilyKallarackal Vs. Vehicle Factory, IV (2012) CPJ 1(SC) 1, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court observed:-

"4. This Court in Anshul Aggarwal v. NOIDA, (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) has explained the scope of condonation of delay in a matter where the special Courts/ Tribunals have been constituted in order to provide expeditious remedies to the person aggrieved and Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is one of them. Therefore, this Court held that while dealing with the application for condonation of delay in such cases the Court must keep in mind the special period of limitation prescribed under the statute (s).

In the instant case, condoning such an inordinate delay without any sufficient cause would amount to substituting the period of limitation by this Court in place of the period prescribed by the Legislature for filing the special leave petition. Therefore, we do not see any cogent reason to condone the delay.

Hence, in the facts and circumstance of the case as explained hereinabove, we are not inclined to entertain these petitions. The same are dismissed on the ground of delay".

In R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, 2009 (2) Scale 108, Supreme Court 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".

The above quoted authoritative judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are fully applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Negligence and deliberate inaction are clearly imputable to the petitioner in filing the present revision petition. Valuable rights might have accrued to the other party. In this perspective, I do not find any merit in the application for condonation of delay as no sufficient cause has been shown for condoning such huge delay.

Based on these reasons, I do not find any justification for condoning the delay of 703 days in filing the present revision petition. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the revision petition No.3344 of 2017 also stands dismissed.