AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
REVISION petition nos. 2618, 2619 and 2620 of 2012 are filed by petitioners namely N Saidaiah, Jatothu Vasram, and Parisha Sabasiva Rao against a common order dated 8th April 2011 passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad ( ''the State Commission '') in First Appeal nos. 973, 974 and 975 of 2009 whereby the State Commission allowed the First Appeals by setting aside the orders dated 30.06.2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Guntur ( ''the District Forum '').
THE petitioners/complainants are farmers who in their complaints have alleged that their main occupation is agriculture and they have grown red chillies in their fields. The petitioners/ complainants had stored 101, 116 and 101 bags of chillies respectively in the first opposite party no.1/ second respondent ''s cold storage and agreed to pay Rs.60/- per bag towards rent, when the stock was sold. The petitioners stored theirs chillies produced in the second respondent ''s cold storage for obtaining a better market price at the best appropriate time. Respondent no.1/ second opposite party - New India Assurance Co. Ltd., collected the premium from the farmers and gave standard fire policy and declaration policy for batch of stock with policy bearing nos. 11/9592 dated 08.04.2000, 5859 and 11/9592 respectively. On 28.01.2001 a fire took place in cold storage of respondent no. 2 and chillies produced by the petitioners were burnt to ashes, causing loss of Rs.1,01,000/-, Rs.1,16,000/- and Rs.66,000/- respectively. Immediately the petitioners approached the respondent no.2/ opposite party no.1 - the Cold Storage for seeking delivery of the stock or compensation. Respondent No. 2 assured the petitioner that the claim will be settled within two months from the date of accident of the fire. The petitioners also approached respondent no. 1/ OP No. 2 regarding the insurance claim, compensation as per the policy issued by them, but they are postponed the matter on one pretext or the other but did not settle the claim of the complainants. The respondent no. 1- the New India Assurance Company in their written statement have stated that the name of the petitioners was not found in the surveyor ''s list as per his report. Hence, there were no claims by the petitioner. The respondent no.1 submitted that it could not settle the claim of the petitioners as their names were not found in the surveyor ''s list. Respondent no. 1 further stated that that it had settled 1000 old cases and deposited the amount as per the National Commission ''s directions.
THE District Forum allowed the complaint in part in each case in terms as indicated below: (i) "The complainant is entitled for the value of 101, 116 and 101 bags of red chillies deposited by him in the cold storage of 1st opposite party vide bond no. 389 and 223 as per the guidelines fixed by the National Commission by the order dated 20.12.2006 including interest amount. (ii) The 2nd opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.1,000/- towards costs of litigation. (iii) The amounts ordered above shall be paid by the insurance company, i.e., OP 2. No further compensation is awarded. (iv) The claim against 1st opposite party (in RP nos. 2618 and 2620 of 2012) 3rd Opposite party in RP No. 2619 of 2012 are dismissed ".
AGGRIEVED by the orders of the District Forum, respondent no. 1 - New India Assurance Company Ltd., filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission vide order dated 8th April 2011 have stated as under: "The complainant has failed to establish that he had stored the red chillies with the opposite party no.1. The complainant could not give any cogent reasons for the first opposite party in issuing the bond no. 432 in favour of the Chintala Subba Rao and himself. It is pertinent to note that the assessment of loss of the stock made by the surveyor does not speak of any storage or loss of stock of the complainant. The complainant failed to establish the two facets of the fact, obtaining of insurance coverage and actual loss of stock in the fire accident at opposite party no. 1, storage. In the result FA nos. 972 to 976 of 2008 are allowed by setting aside the orders in Cc No. 473 of 2006, CC537 of 2006, CC no. 633 of 2006, CC no. 1070 0f 2006 and CC no. 1100 of 2006. Consequently the complaints are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs ".
Hence, the present revision petition. Along with the present revision petition an application for condonation of delay of 350 days have also been filed. The reasons given in the application for condonation of delay are as follows: After the impugned judgment dated 08.04.2011, as per the State Commission ''s registry ''s record the free copy issued on 04.05.2011 but the same was not served on the petitioners. So the petitioners applied for the present certified copy on 08.11.2011. The said certified copy was delivered on the counsel for the petitioners on 17.11.2011. The counsel for the petitioners received the said certified copy of the said impugned order. Thereafter, he sent the certified copy of the petitioners. The petitioners due to their poor financial condition took some time to arrange money for arranging a lawyer at New Delhi to approach this Commission. The local counsel took some time to contact the Delhi lawyer. The Delhi lawyer took some time to prepare the matter. The revision petitions have been drafted by the Delhi Lawyer in the 2nd week of March 2012 and send the same to the petitioners '' local counsel at Hyderabad for petitioners '' approval. In the first week of April, the petitioners came to Delhi and signed the petitions. The signed petitions and vakalatanama have been handed over to the clerk of the Delhi lawyer for filing before this Hon ''ble Court. But the clerk of Delhi lawyer while leaving his job mixed up the present matter with the disposed file. The petitioners and the counsel was under the impression, the petitions have already been filed. On an enquiry, the counsel for the petitioner at Delhi came to know that the same has not been filed in time. With some effort the signed petitions were traced out in the week of July, 2012. The said file could not traced out due to the summer vacation and thereafter due to their being busy in reopening work. The said revision petitions filed immediately without any further delay before this Commission.
WE have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the records. The counsel for the petitioner could not explain as to what happened to the free copy which was issued on 04.05.2011. He kept on stating that the local counsel who had been engaged by the three petitioners had failed to follow-up the case. However, he confirmed that no action has been taken against the said counsels and neither any complaint has been made against him to the Bar Council. Counsel for the petitioner also could not explain as to when the petitioners came to know about the order had been passed on 08.04.2011. He could not also give detailed reasons for the delay between the receipt of the certified copy of the order on 17.11.2011 to the second week of March when the revision petition is said to have been drafted by the Delhi Lawyer. In brief the petitioners have failed to explain this inordinate delay of 350 days, i.e., almost a year. This view is further supported by the following authorities. In Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), it has been held 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 ".
In R.B. Ramlingam v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC)= I (2009) SLT 701=2009 (2) Scale 108, it has been observed that "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 ".
IN Ram Lal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, it has been observed that "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 Section 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 bonafides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the inquiry 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 Sow Kamalabai, W/o Narasaiyya Shrimal and Narsaiyya, S/o Sayanna Shrimal Vs. Ganpat Vithalroa Gavare, 2007 (1) Mh. LJ 807, it was held that "the expression ''sufficient cause '' cannot be erased from Section 5 of the Limitation Act by adopting excessive liberal approach which would defeat the very purpose of Section 5 of Limitation Act. There must be some cause which can be termed as a sufficient one for the purpose of delay condonation. I do not find any such ''sufficient cause '' stated in the application and no such interference in the impugned order is called for ". In Balwant Singh Vs. Jagdish Singh and Ors., (Civil Appeal no. 1166 of 2006), decided by the Apex Court on 08.07.2010 it was held: "The party should show that besides acting bonafide, it had taken all possible steps within its power and control and had approached the Court without any unnecessary delay. The test is whether or not a cause is sufficient to see whether it could have been avoided by the party by the exercise of due care and attention. [Advanced Law Lexicon, P. Ramanatha Aiyar, 3rd Edition, 2005] ".
Accordingly, we find that there is no ''sufficient cause '' to condone the delay of 350 days in filing the present revision petition. The application for condonation of delay is without any merit as well as having no legal basis and is not maintainable. Consequently, the present revision petitions being time barred by limitation are dismissed with no order as to cost.