M/S. Vishal Infrastructure Mega Toenship vs Dilip C. Nandankar

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner M/s. Vishal Infrastructure Mega Township against the order dated 25.10.2016 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, (in short 'the State Commission') passed in First appeal No.A/14/239.

Brief facts of the case relevant for deciding the present revision petition are that the respondent/complainant filed a complaint against the petitioner/opposite party before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagpur, (in short 'the District Forum'). The District Forum vide its order dated 18.12.2013 proceeded ex-parte against the opposite party/petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the State Commission, which was dismissed vide order dated 25.10.2016.

Hence the present revision petition.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at the admission stage. First of all the learned counsel mentioned that there is a delay of 217 days in filing the present revision petition. The learned counsel mentioned that after receiving free copy of the order from the State Commission passed in appeal No.A/14/239 filed by the petitioner, the petitioner took the legal advice and finally it came to know that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. And another vs. M/s. Mampee Timbers and Hardwares Pvt. Ltd. And another [Civil Appeal No.....of 2017 (D. No.2365 of 2017) decided on 10.2.2017 has allowed the consumer forum to accept the written statement filed with delay. Accordingly, the partners of the petitioner firm decided to file the appeal and then the counsel has taken some time to prepare the appeal and to file the same. Thus, the delay is not intentional and has happened due to inadvertence. It was prayed to condone the delay on the ground mentioned in the application for condonation of delay.

It was further mentioned by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the State Commission has dismissed the appeal on the ground that if one Director was suffering from heart disease and could not contest the case before the District Forum, the other Directors of the petitioner firm might have filed the reply in time before the District Forum. It was mentioned by the learned counsel that in the firm, there was distribution of work amongst the Directors and therefore, it was not possible to file the reply by other Directors. It was further stated that the petitioner has not got any opportunity to present and defend their case before any consumer forum and therefore, the order of the State Commission be set aside and appeal be decided on merit.

I have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have examined the material on record. It has not been denied by the petitioner that the notice was not served upon them. The State Commission has rejected the appeal because out of five Directors of the petitioner firm any of them could have filed the reply after receiving the notice. However, no reply was filed and ultimately the District Forum proceeded ex-parte against the petitioner firm. The laxity on the part of the petitioner firm does not stop here. There is a huge delay of 217 days in filing the present revision petition. Even after dismissal of the appeal, care was not taken by the petitioner to approach this Commission within time. In the application for condonation of delay, the petitioner has stated that the petitioner received the free copy of the State Commission order, which was issued on 17.11.2016. In the application for condonation of delay, the petitioner has not given any further details of action taken by the petitioner from 17.11.2016 till it came to know about the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. And another vs. M/s. Mampee Timbers and Hardwares Pvt. Ltd. And another (supra), which was passed on 10.02.2017.

Thus, clearly there was total inaction on the part of the petitioner from 17.11.2016 till 10.02.2017. After petitioner came to know that he could get an opportunity for filing the written statement, the petitioner decided to file the revision petition, which was ultimately filed on 28.08.2017. Thus, even if the ground taken in condonation application of the petitioner is accepted that after order dated 10.02.2017 passed in Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. And another vs. M/s. Mampee Timbers and Hardwares Pvt. Ltd. And another (supra), it was decided to file the revision petition, the petitioner did not take the matter, with sufficient urgency so that the petition could have been filed in time even from the date of order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thus, clearly, the petitioner had roughly exhausted the time allowed for filing the revision petition even before the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. And another vs. M/s. Mampee Timbers and Hardwares Pvt. Ltd. And another (supra) was passed and even after hoping to get an opportunity for filing written statement on the basis of Hon'ble Supreme Court's order. The petitioner has further taken approximately six months' time to file the revision petition, whereas the time prescribed for filing the revision petition is only 90 days. 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 icilyKallarackal 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 i.e. the complainant. 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 217 days in filing the present revision petition. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the revision petition No.2763 of 2017 also stands dismissed.