Soumen Roy vs Aditya Bhagat

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Soumen Roy against the order dated 10.6.2014 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal, (in short 'the State Commission') passed in SC Case No.FA/1264/2013.

The revision petition has been filed with delay of 252 days as reported by the Registry. The notice was issued on the application for condonation of delay. The learned counsel for the respondent has filed reply to the application for condonation of delay. The matter was heard on the application for condonation of delay.

Brief facts relating to the revision petition are that the respondent/complainant filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit-I Kolkata, (in short 'the District Forum') against the opposite party/petitioner. The District Forum allowed the complaint vide its order dated 19.08.2013 as under:-

"That the case is allowed on contest with cost against the O.P. is directed to execute and register the deed of conveyance of the room of the ground floor in favour of the Complainant as shown in the schedule "B" property of the petition of complaint in respect of the ground floor of premises No.46, Kunkulia Road, P.S. Garihat including two rooms. Covers space and latrine and is further directed to pay to the complainant compensation of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.5000/- (rupees five thousand) only within 45 days from the date of communication of this order i.e. an interest @10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization."

Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the petitioner/opposite party preferred an appeal bearing No.1264 of 2013 before the State Commission. State Commission vide its order dated 10.6.2014 dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation.

Hence the present revision petition.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties on the application for condonation of delay. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the delay has mainly been caused due to medical illness of the learned counsel for the petitioner and he has filed the relevant medical record for condoning the delay. Registry has reported 252 days of delay. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner was totally dependent on the counsel and as the counsel was suffering from illness, he could not file the appeal in time. The petitioner should not suffer on account of lapses on the part of the concerned Advocate. It was prayed that the delay may be condoned as the petitioner has strong case on merits.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent /complainant stated that there is no provision in the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) that delay may be condoned due to lapses of the Advocate of the party. It has been further stressed by the learned counsel for the respondent that the appeal before the State Commission was also filed with delay of 66 days and no proper explanation was given by the petitioner/appellant and therefore, the State Commission has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner on the ground of limitation. The revision petition has been filed with delay of 287 days. The petitioner has admitted that he came to know of the impugned order on 26.06.2014 and then he applied for a copy of the order. Learned counsel stated that the limitation period is to be counted from the date of knowledge and clearly the petitioner came to know of the order of the State Commission on 26.6.2014. However, petitioner applied for copy on 27.7.2014. Thus, there was delay of about one month in filing the application for the copy of the order.

Then, at every stage, enough time has been taken by the petitioner as the petitioner was at ease and he was not bothered to file revision petition in time. Moreover, the counsel remained ill for about six months and the petitioner did not try to change the counsel. The basic responsibility of filing the revision petition rested with the petitioner and not with the counsel. The petitioner could have very well changed his counsel for filing the revision petition in time. The counsel also became medically fit in April, 2015, however, the revision petition has been filed on 08.07.2015, for which no explanation has been given. Thus, from the application for condonation of delay, it is clear that at every stage, the petitioner has been lethargic and careless in pursuing the filing of the revision petition against the impugned order of the State Commission. Clearly, the delay has not been properly explained and the delay has occurred at every occasion, which could have been avoided in the facts and circumstances. Learned counsel for the respondent prayed to dismiss the application for condonation of delay.

I have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the material on record.

The following is mentioned in the application for condonation of delay:-

"2. That the impugned order was passed on 10/06/2014 in FA/1264/2013.

That the petitioner came to know of the said order on 26/06/2014 through confonet website.

That the petitioner on coming to know of the impugned order called upon it's Advocate to procure all the documents and order in the said case.

That the Advocate of the petitioner applied for the certified copy on 25/07/2014 which was delivered on 31/07/2014.

That the Advocate of the petitioner after obtaining the certified copy could drafted the revision petition on 09/08/2014 and got it finalised by approval of his client on 14/08/2014.

That the revision was redrafted/finalised on 20/08/2014 and after being made ready with all annexure and documents and after posting the same to New Delhi, the same was sent for filing on 01/09/2014 within the period of limitation.

However, the instant revision was not accepted by the registry of this learned Commission as it suffered from certain inherent defects relating to annexure filed along with the main revisional application. The instant revisional application was thereafter sent back to the petitioners advocate in Kolkata on 06/09/2014 and the defects were finally cured and the application was further made ready on 19/09/2014. However, the statutory period of limitation has expired by such time.

That the revision was again sent to Delhi for filing on 24/09/2014 but was again sent back from the filing department as the font (style of alphabets) was not same in the whole revision petition and was sent back of Kolkata on 01/10/2014.

That the Ld. Advocate for the petitioner suffers from a congenital physical condition called Ankylosing Spondylitis for the last 10 years and has been suffering on and off from pain and has been under constant treatment and medication for which the Ld. Advocate sometimes has to take leave from work for days or even months.

That the Ld. Advocate suffered from severe pain due to such condition and was advised bed rest for 3 months from October 2014 to January 2015 and further from March 2015 to April 2015 for which the revision could not be filed."

From the above averments made in the application for condonation of delay, it is clear that first of all no proof has been filed by the petitioner that his appeal was not accepted by the Registry of this Commission twice on the ground of format and fonts. Moreover, the counsel for the petitioner became free from any illness in April, 2015, however, the appeal has been filed on 08.07.2015 and this delay has not been explained. Thus, it is clear that at every stage, the petitioner has taken time. It is clear that the petitioner was not attentive to file the revision petition as quickly as possible. It is further seen that the appeal before the State Commission was also filed with delay of 66 days and that is why the appeal has been dismissed by the State Commission. Even after dismissal of the appeal, the petitioner did not take any lesson and has filed the revision petition with delay of about 287 days. Special periods of limitation have been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and its Rules and Regulations 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".

The above quoted authoritative judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are fully applicable in the present matter and clearly negligence, deliberate inaction and lack of bona-fides is attributable to petitioner in delaying the filing of revision petition. Valuable rights also accrued to the other party. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the application for condonation of delay of 252 days as reported by the Registry in filing the present revision petition. Application for condonation of delay in filing the revision petition is dismissed. Consequently, RP No.1738 of 2015 also stands dismissed.