AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Taken up through video conferencing.
This petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the 'Act 1986') in challenge to the Order dated 18.09.2012 of The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan (the 'State Commission') in appeal no. 1616 of 2011 arising out of the Order dated 02.11.2010 of The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Alwar (the 'District Commission') in complaint no. 474 of 2009.
The petition has been filed on 15.03.2019 apropos concurrent findings of the two fora below with reported and admitted delay of 2279 days. This delay is prior to the COVID-19 situation that occasioned in March 2020.
This division bench exhaustively heard the learned counsel for the petitioner afresh on admission.
The bench perused the material on record, including inter alia the Order dated 02.11.2010 of the District Commission, the impugned Order dated 18.09.2012 of the State Commission and the petition.
On 12.07.2019 the petitioner was directed to remove the defects within four weeks. However, as reported by the Registry, the defects have not been removed till date. Be that as it may, we deem it appropriate to proceed with the matter.
The application for condonation of delay is taken first.
For ready appreciation, the reasons for delay as stated in paras 3 and 4 of the said application are reproduced below:
That the counsel for the Non-Complainant did not inform him about the judgment dated 18.09.2012. On fine morning of February 2019, the Non-Complainant got the information from the office of District Magistrate, Ahmedabad whereby he was informed that the district magistrate office has received a letter dated 02.11.2018 by which the District Consumer Forum Alwar has directed him to recover the amount in pursuance of the judgment dated 02.11.2010. The Non-Complainant obtained the said copy of the letter dated 02.11.2018. Then petitioner enquired form the local sources and collected all the informations, whereby he came to know that his appeal has been dismissed vide judgment dated 18.09.2012. Then Non-Complainant instructed to the newly appointed local counsel to get all the information and get all the certified copies of the complaint as well as appeal. The newly appointed counsel tried to get the certified copies from the respective consumer foras whereby he was informed that files have been destroyed. In these facts and circumstances, the Non-Complainant is unable to file the same and other hand the district magistrate office is pressing hard to deposit the amount and Non-Complainant could know the judgment dated 18.09.2012, so he could not file the revision petition before this Hon'ble Commission well in time. Therefore, delay in filing the revision petition may be condoned gracefully.
That after getting the information of dismissal of the appeal vide judgment dated 18.09.2012 the Non-Complainant sought the legal opinion from the advocate and it was suggested that a revision petitioner should be preferred challenging the impugned judgment dated 18.09.2012. Thus, revision was drafted and prepared and same is being submitted before this National Commission. If delay, if any, was the bonafide and beyond the reasonable control of the Non-Complainant, therefore, the delay in filing the revision petition may be gracefully condoned.
A plain reading of the said grounds of delay shows that the reasons accorded for the delay point towards managerial inefficiency and a perfunctory and casual attitude towards the law of limitation. They are illogical and unpersuasive in explaining convincingly or cogently the delay in filing the revision petition.
The principal explanation for the colossal delay, as has been occasioned in the present case, is that the petitioner was not aware of the judgment passed by the State Commission. Such kind of explanation, on the very face of it, is unpalatable and beyond comprehension. The petitioner was the opposite party to the complaint and had contested the case before the District Commission. Then the petitioner was himself the appellant and it was his own appeal which was heard in the State Commission and adversely decided. The impugned judgment was passed in 2012 and yet it has been sought to be argued that it was only in 2019 that the petitioner could get the inklings of the adverse verdict when the execution proceedings were brought at his doors.
It has been pleaded that the petitioner's counsel never informed him about the decision of the appeal for all these years. We feel that even the most credulous person will find it hard to swallow such kind of insipid explanation.
Ordinarily we lean liberally in favour of the petitioner for the purpose of condoning the delay and prefer to decide the lis on merits rather than rejecting the same at the threshold stage but even a liberal exercise of such kind will require at least some semblance of a plausible explanation being proffered to bridge up the yawning gap after which the revision has been filed.
The powers which have been conferred on us to condone the delay have got to be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily. We cannot afford to act at will either whimsically or capriciously. Certainly the discretion to be exercised in such matters is not an exercise of some kind of royal privilege or prerogative bestowed upon us, it is essentially a legal exercise and has to be lawfully harnessed with judicious discipline. The object and purpose behind the law of limitation cannot be either swung into oblivion or be ignored with apathy nor can the same be blissfully neglected. A complete disregard of the law of limitation will eventually frustrate and defeat the salutary purpose which inspires the enactment wherever it has been provided.
In the present matter at hand we see not even a semblance of explanation which may constitute a good ground to condone the delay. The onus of the petitioner to show us the factual basis from which may emanate such grounds, remains undischarged.
The application being sans merit must therefore meet its legal nemesis in the form of rejection, which follows. The application stands dismissed.
As the application for condonation of delay has been dismissed, the petition stands dismissed on limitation.
The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to all parties in the petition immediately. The stenographer is also requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.