AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
LEARNED counsel for the petitioner present. There is a delay of 63 days in filing the present revision petition. The petitioner -complainant has moved an application for condonation of delay and the delay is explained in paras 1 and 2 which are reproduced as under: "1. that the petitioner invoking Section 21(B) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, prepared and completed in all respects revision petition against the judgment dt. 24.03.2014 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jharkhand, Ranchi in the First appeal No. 163/2010 in 4 copies and gave it First Flight Courier Ranchi on 09.06.2014 to deliver the same to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, so that the revision petition is received there and stands registered but the said First Flight Courier did not deliver the same to the commission and without knowledge or permission of the petitioner retained and ultimately delivered back to the petitioner on 06.09.2014, without assigning any specific reason for the same.
That thereafter the advocate concerned who had prepared the Revision Petition was not available at Ranchi. As such on the 14th of September, 2014. The petitioner''s counsel (Mrs. B. P. Tetarbe, Advocate) was informed and handed over the returned revision petition. Thereafter, this application for condonation of delay was prepared and typed and the Revision Application alongwith the condonation application is again being sent through the courier namely D.T.D.C. Courier Ranchi."
IT is stated that the revision petition was sent from Ranchi through courier on 9.6.2014 to deliver the same to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi.
THIS Commission did not receive any such revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced a courier receipt, which mentions the name of consignee, N. Cousumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi on 9.6.2014. There is overwriting on the said receipt. However, it is admitted that this consignment could not be served upon the National Commission due to bad service but the courier company has admitted this and in the writing, which is produced for the first time, it is mentioned that the consignment was returned to the petitioner on 6.9.2014. Such like document can be created at any time. It is not mentioned what happened between 9.6.2014 to 6.9.2014 when this consignment was returned on 6.9.2014. This document carries exiguous value. The name of the Commission was not written properly and the complainant did not receive any receipt in token of its receipt by the Registry of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. It is also not understood what was kept in the envelope. Second ground that the counsel was not available at Ranchi. It is also not believe worthy. Day to day delay was not explained. Such like defences can be created at any time. The application for condonation of delay cannot be accepted in view of the Supreme Court authority in Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, 2011 4 CPJ 63 , R.B. Ramlingam v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, 2009 2 Scale 108; Ram Lal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., 1962 AIR(SC) 361 and Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others, 1977 AIR(SC) 2221 and Office of the Chief Post Master General and Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. and Anr. 2012 STPL(Web) 132 (SC).
THE Apex Court in a recent case i.e. Sanjay Sidgonda Patil vs. Branch Manager, National Insu. Co. Ltd. and Anr., Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 37183 of 2013 decided on 17.12.2013, confirmed the order of the National Commission and refused to condone the delay of 13 days. Likewise, delay of 78 days was not condoned by the Apex Court in the case of M/s Ambadi Enterprise Ltd. vs. Smt. Rajalakshmi Subramanian in SLP No. 19896 of 2013 decided on 12.7.2013. Again delay of 77 days was not condoned in case of Chief Off. Nagpur Hous. and Area Dev. Boa and Anr. vs. Gopinath Kawadu Bhagat, SLP No. 33792 of 2013 decided on 19.11.2013.
THE case is barred by limitation and the case on merits is not so strong.
NOW , let us turn to the merits of this case. The case of the petitioner/respondent, Shri Nageshwar Lohra is that on 16.2.2009 when Prakash Tirkey was driving the vehicle, it met with an accident. However, the complainant disclosed the name of Shri Ajay Swanshi in the column of details about the Driver (at the time of accident)", whereas in his evidence on oath, Ajay Swansi stated that he was not driving the said vehicle and his name was wrongly given. The complainant also stated that the driver of the said vehicle fled away due to which he had given the name of his brother -in -law, Shri Praksh Tirkey but the vehicle was being driven by Shri Ajay Swanshi.
THE complainant made a statement on oath that Prakkash Tirkey was driving the vehicle at the time of accident on 16.2.2009, who himself lodged the FIR. However, the complainant produced the oral evidence to show that Prakash Tirkey was driving the vehicle at the time of accident.
THERE is driving licence of Shri Prakash Tirkey, he was not having licence to drive the Public Service vehicle. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the vehicle was being driven by Shri Prakash Tirkey. It is held by the State Commission that Shri Prakash Tirkey was not having licence to drive public service vehicle.
LEARNED counsel for the petitioner insisted that the petitioner was having LMV driving licence and therefore he was entitled to drive the Public Service vehicle as well.
THIS Commission while going through the judgment in a revision petition titled as Prithipati Sattiyya and Ors. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., revision petition No. 2717 of 2007, decided on 13.12.2011 held as under: "The driver of the vehicle in question was holding a licence to drive LMV only and there was no endorsement on the licence authorizing him to drive the taxi which was a transport vehicle to carry passengers. Hon''ble Supreme Court in the judgment in the caes of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Prabhu Lal, 2008 1 CPJ 1 has held that if the driver of the vehicle did not have a licence to drive the transport vehicle, the insurance company is not liable to reimburse for the loss caused to the vehicle in the accident. "
AGAINST this judgment, Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.(s) 12832 -12833/2012 titled as Prithipati Sattiyya and Ors. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., decided on 3.12.2012 was preferred before the Supreme Court in this case and the same was dismissed by Hon''ble Supreme Court.
IT is well said that money is bottomless sea in which honour, conscious and truth can be drowned. The revision petition has no merits. Therefore, it has to be dismissed but before concluding, we want to highlight one another serious fact in this case.
THE petitioner/Shri Nageshwar Lohra is working as constable in BSF. He is the owner of this vehicle. He is earning the profit out of this business. It is a commercial transaction and the petition otherwise is not maintainable. One more point which requires notice is that the petitioner has not come to the Commission with clean hands. The but and ben position taken by him goes to demolish his case. It is not clear whether the vehicle was driven by Shri Ajay Swanshi or by Shri Prakash Tirkey. He has tried his best to mislead the legal proceedings in this way. Consequently, we dismiss the revision petition.