Rameshwar Patel vs Shankar Beej Bhandar & Anr

Prem Narain, Presiding Member

None is present on behalf of the petitioner even on the second round. It is seen that none was present on behalf of the petitioner even on the previous date i.e. on 12.09.2019, therefore, this matter is decided under the provision of Section 13(2)(C) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

It is seen that the brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant purchased seeds from the opposite parties and his crop failed. He filed a complaint being no. 351 of 2010 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jabalpur, (in short 'the District Forum') but the District Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground that a crop can fail due to many reasons such as not following proper agricultural practices or due to improper use of pesticides etc. The District Forum concluded that no proof has been filed by the complainant for proving that the crop has failed due to substandard seeds. Hence, District Forum dismissed the complaint vide its order dated 08.05.2013.

Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the complainant preferred appeal before the State Commission, which was dismissed in default and for non-prosecution vide its order dated 5.5.2014. The State Commission has mentioned that no body appeared on behalf of the complainant on four consecutive dates i.e. on 25.10.2013, 13.1.2014 3.3.2014 and 5.5.2014. The complainant filed a review application before the State Commission, which was also dismissed vide its order dated 18.5.2017 on the ground that the State Commission did not have any power to review its own order.

Hence the present revision petition has been filed.

It is clear from the order of the State Commission that the complainant did not appear for four consecutive dates and therefore the State Commission has rightly reached to the conclusion that the complainant was not interested in pursuing the appeal. The case of the complainant has already been heard on merits by the District Forum and District Forum has not found merit in the complaint. In fact, no expert report has been filed by the complainant to prove his case. As a normal practice, when a crop fails, the farmers make complaint to the local Agricultural Officers and then the crop is inspected by a subject matter specialist or a team of such experts. A decision could have been taken by the District Forum, if such report was available. District Forum is right in observing that no decision can be taken only on oral submission by the complainant.

It is further seen that this revision petition has been filed with a delay of 164 days as reported by the Registry. In the delay condonation application, following has been mentioned:-

"1. That the applicant filed an application for restoration of appeal no.1979/13 before this Hon'ble tribunal same had been dismissed due to want of prosecution on 05.05.2014.

That, applicant not having any knowledge of dismissal of the appeal, and counsel also not inform the same and when he asked about the status then he sated appeal is pending.

That, the applicant got knowledge about the dismissal of appeal on 20.03.2017 when the neighbour served the envelope to the applicant and stated that he received the same but forgotten to serve the same immediately and when white wash work going on he found the same and handed to the applicant.

That, applicant has not aware about the dismissal of appeal he has not received any information through his counsel, he received information only in month of 20.03.2017, therefore due to aforesaid reason delay of caused in filing is liable to be condoned in the interest of justice.

That, applicant filed M.J.C.021/17 before the M.P. State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission Bhopal, but same has been not entertain due to the Judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Rajeev Hitendra Pathak and others vs. Achyut Kashinath Karekar and another 2011 (8) SCJ, 308, resultantly same has dismissed on 18.05.2017.

That it is settle principle of law due to fault of Counsel the applicant does not suffered the applicant is a bonafide person and waiting for final result of appeal since last 4 years.Hence the delay is liable to be condoned."

From the above, first of all it is observed that the petitioner has taken the same ground as the petitioner may have taken before the State Commission except that at the last the petitioner has filed decision of the State Commission dated 18.05.2017. The first four paras of the application seems to be the justification given for delay in filing appeal or application for reconsidering order dated 05.05.2014. Actually, no reason for delay in filing the present revision petition has been mentioned in this application for condonation of delay. However, at the end of this application, the petitioner has blamed his counsel for not informing him about the dismissal of the appeal by the State Commission. First of all, it was the duty of the complainant to have pursued his appeal before the State Commission. The order of the State Commission reveals that the appeal was also not properly pursued as none appeared for the appellant four times before the State Commission. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, in Moddus Media Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Scone Exhibition Pvt. Ltd. RFA No.497 of 2017, decided on 18.5.2017, has held that:-

"11. The litigant owes a duty to be vigilant of his rights and is also expected to be equally vigilant about the judicial proceedings pending in the court of law against him or initiated at his instance. The litigant cannot be permitted to cast the entire blame on the Advocate. It appears that the blame is being attributed on the Advocate with a view to get the delay condoned and avoid the decree. After filing the civil suit or written statement, the litigant cannot go off to sleep and wake up from a deep slumber after passing a long time as if the court is storage of the suits filed by such negligent litigants. Putting the entire blame upon the advocate and trying to make it out as if they were totally unaware of the nature or significance of the proceedings is a theory put forth by the appellant/applicant/defendant company, which cannot be accepted and ought not to have been accepted. The appellant is not a simple or rustic illiterate person but a Private Limited Company managed by educated businessmen, who know very well where their interest lies. The litigant is to be vigilant and pursue his case diligently on all the hearings. If the litigant does not appear in the court and leaves the case at the mercy of his counsel without caring as to what different frivolous pleas/defences being taken by his counsel for adjournments is bound to suffer. If the litigant does not turn up to obtain the copies of judgment and orders of the court so as to find out what orders are passed by the court is liable to bear the consequences."

From the above, it is clear that the basic responsibility to pursue the litigation remains with the litigant and he cannot blame the counsel for all the adverse things that happen to him in that litigation, Moreover, 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 CicilyKallarackal 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 ".

From the facts of the case, it is clear that the complainant has not shown reasonable diligence in pursuing his revision petition. He was not serious in filing the present revision petition in time. Blaming the counsel cannot absolve the complainant from his responsibility to monitor the progress of the case. Had he properly monitored his appeal before the State Commission, he could have known the dismissal of his appeal within a reasonable period. Clearly, negligence and deliberate inaction are imputable to the complainant in filing the present revision petition. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the application for condonation of delay and the same is dismissed. The revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed on merits as well as on the ground of limitation.