Puja & Anr vs Suresh Laxmanrao Shewale

Dr. Inder Jit Singh, Presiding Member

The present Revision Petitions (RPs) have been filed by the Petitioner(s) / OPs) against Respondent(s) / Complainants as detailed above, under section 58 1 (b) of Consumer Protection Act 2019, against the common order dated 19.08.2022 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Maharashtra, Circuit Bench at Nagpur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No.A/333 to 336 of 2019 in which order dated 31.07.2018 and 14.08.2018 of Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Nagpur ( hereinafter referred to as ‘District Forum’) in CC No. 16/352, 16/353, 16/350 and 16/351 were challenged.

Notices were issued to the Respondents on 20.01.2023. As respondents failed to appear despite service of notice, they were proceeded ex parte vide order dated 29.05.2023.

Vide order dated 19.08.2022, State Commission has dismissed the Appeals filed by the Petitioners herein on account of limitation, having been filed with a delay of 355 days and State Commission not finding the cause for delay sufficient.  In this regard, extract of relevant provisions of the order of the State Commission is reproduced below:

“….On going through the contents of the application for condonation of delay we find that there was delay of 355 days in filing the present appeal. Applicant has herself stated that the impugned judgment and order passed on 31.07.2018 and she received the certified copy on 15.09.2018.  On going through the contentions of the application of condonation of delay we find that the applicant has not only taken the ground of her own illness and death of her grand father and uncle but has also attributed the delay to her advocates who were engaged from time to time.  On perusal of the application same shows that the applicant no.3 was duly represented in the proceeding before the learned Additional District Consumer Commission Nagpur by advocate Mr. Raman Naktode.  We have also gone through the death certificate as well as medical certificate filed on record.  It is needless to mention that the applicant was under bounden duty to explain the delay in a satisfactory manner and sufficient cause has to be shown for the delay.  Here in the present case there is delay of 355 days in filing the present appeal, but as stated earlier the applicant has attributed the delay mainly to lack of assistance on the part of her advocate which in our view cannot be termed as satisfactory ground looking to the delay of 355 days.

x xx x

…… In our view both these judgments on which reliance has  been placed by the learned advocate are not applicable to the facts of the present case, as here we are dealing with the question of limitation under the Consumer Protection Act which is a welfare legislation. We have mentioned earlier that though the applicant filed medical certificate on record for the period of illness but the applicant has mainly attributed huge delay to lack of assistance on the part of advocate and in searching for new advocate, but in our view the same cannot be termed as sufficient cause considering the delay of 355 days in filing the appeal.  It is now well settled that the applicant himself is accepted to be diligent after receiving the copy of order to be challenged.”

We  have carefully gone through the order of the State Commission, the grounds for challenge in the revision petitions and contentions of the petitioners during the oral hearing.  Ultimately, it is the satisfaction of the State Commission with respect to the sufficiency of the cause and explaining the reasons for delay / grounds for condonation. We cannot substitute our satisfaction with that of the State Commission unless we find any illegality or material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order of the State Commission. Even during the hearing, the Petitioners could not give any convincing reason for delay in filing the Appeals before the State Commission other than those adduced before the State Commission, which have been duly addressed by the State Commission.

State Commission has given  very detailed and well-reasoned order after duly considering all the contentions of the Petitioners herein.  Keeping in view the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Basawaraj and Another. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer (2013) 14 SCC 81, ‘Esha Bhattacharjee V. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy (2013) 12 SCC 649’ and ‘Sridevi Datla Vs. Union of India and Ors. ( 2021) 5 SCC 321’, we are of the considered view that there is no illegality or material irregularity or  jurisdictional error in the order of the State Commission.

As was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rubi Chandra Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2011) 11 SCC 269] that the scope in a Revision Petition is limited. Such powers can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order. In Sunil Kumar Maity Vs. State Bank of India & Ors. [AIR (2022) SC 577]  held that “the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.”

In view of the foregoing, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the State Commission and same is upheld.  Accordingly, all the Revision Petitions are dismissed.

The pending IAs in the cases, if any, also stand disposed off.