National Irrigation Equipment Company vs Jai Kishan

The present Revision Petitions have been filed against the order dated 17.1.2017, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula (hereinafter referred to as "the State Commission"), by which the Appeals preferred by the Petitioner herein have been dismissed. The office has reported that there is a delay of 718 days in filing the Revision Petitions. An Application seeking condonation of delay has also been filed. The Application consists of 10 paragraphs, out of which relevant paragraphs No.3 to 6, which give the explanation are reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference :

"3. Unfortunately, the Petitioner has been keeping unwell as he is a chronic patient of Gastroenteritis, Hypertension, Migraine and other crippling diseases. Copies of prescriptions, hospitalization, medication and various Tests is attached for perusal of the Hon'ble Commission.

That during the last more than two years he had to undergo various tests, and a lot medication, advised bed rest, which caused him a lot of consternation and kept him away from his normal duties and routine work.

That he had entrusted his Counsel with the filing and whenever he asked his counsel he would say that for filing revision the time limit is two years and hence he will file it when the petitioner's health becomes stable as he will have to go do a lot of running around in Delhi once the case is filed at NCDRC. The Petitioner thought that his counsel is being sympathetic towards his medical condition and trusted him. The fact that a two-year widow was there gave him some relief and consolation.

That when the Petitioner's condition got a little bit improved and the two year period was coming to an end, the Petitioner contacted his client who shocked him by saying that he will not be able to go to Delhi due to his busy schedule and that the Petitioner should engage some counsel at Delhi. The Petitioner then used his contacts at Delhi and engaged the present counsel and immediately handed him the file and the counsel took some time to prepare the Revision Petition and finally the same is being filed on 16th April 2019. The present counsel apprised the Petitioner that the time limit for filing the Revision Petition is 90 days from the receipt of order and not two years."

From a reading of the aforesaid paragraphs, it is clear that the disease suffered by the Petitioner was not such, which could have come in the way of the Petitioner for filing the Revision Petitions. Further, it is not clear that the business, which was being carried on by the Petitioner as a proprietor, was closed for the entire period of 718 days. Moreover, we find that the plea that the papers were given to the Counsel, who advised that limitation is two years, is also not acceptable for the reason that the name of the Counsel has not been mentioned. In our considered view, the explanation given by the Petitioner seeking condonation of delay is not satisfactory and therefore, we decline to condone the inordinate delay of 718 days in filing the Revision Petitions.

The Applications seeking condonation of delay are hereby rejected.

Even on merits of the matters, we find that the State Commission has relied upon the Report of spot inspection given by the Assistant Soil Conservation Officer, Jhajjar dated 16.7.2017, which is reproduced below for ready reference :

To adjudicate the matter in a more efficacious manner, the Assistant Soil Conservation Officer, Jhajjar was directed to visit the spot and examine as to whether there was leakage in the pipes or not? He was directed to submit his report.

The Assistant Soil Conservation Officer, Jhajjar submitted his report dated January 16th, 2017 (Annexure A-2) which reads as under :

Report Of Spot Inspection

In compliance of your order dated 5.12.2016, I do hereby submit the following spot inspection report :

I visited the spot in Village Bathera-Kahri, Tehsil and District Jhajjar on 16.1.2017 at 2.30 PM after giving verbal notice to counsels of both the parties whose addresses were in our office file.Few farmers were found present at the spot and I recorded their combined statements, which may be read with this report.

I go dig out the pipeline which were stamped with National Company with its full configuration and the water was leading from the pipes.Few more farmers can present there and confirmed the same in support.

The pipelines are leaking at the spot and there is no possible to irrigate the fields from this pipelines.Report is present for your perusal.

Having perused the aforesaid report, it is unhesitatingly held that there is a leakage in the pipes and it is not possible to irrigate the fields from these pipes. Thus, the impugned order does not call for any interference. Hence, the Appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits."

From perusal of the aforesaid finding recorded by the State Commission, even on merits we find that the State Commission had rightly considered the Report of the Assistant Soil Conservation Officer, Jhajjar and has dismissed the Appeal.

The Revision Petitions fail and are dismissed on both grounds.