Sudhir Kumar Nath vs SUB POST MASTER

REVISION petition no. 278 of 2015 has been filed against the order dated 05.08.2014 of the Assam State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Guwahati ("the State Commission") in Appeal no. 16 of 2013.

THE facts of the case as per the petitioner/ complainant are that on 31.03.2011 the petitioner had gone to SPM Jubilee Digboi, Sub Post Office for re -investment of National Savings Certificates worth Rs.30,000/ -. The SPM however, denied to reinvest the same on the ground that as the same exceeded Rs.20,000/ - and it had to be paid by cheque. It was further stated by the petitioner that due to the failure of the opposite party in accepting his re -investment, he suffered losses by way of tax liability.

IN their written statement before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tinsukia, Assam the respondent/ opposite party have specifically denied that the petitioner submitted the NSC certificates for re -investment on maturity value to the respondent on 31.03.2011 along with all the documents because of the very day, the petitioner submitted an application form for purchasing National Saving Certificate VIII issued without submitting the application form for re -investment which is sine qua not for re -investment of NSC on maturity value. The same was very much evident from the application form dated 30.03.2011, submitted by the petitioner himself along with the complaint form. The respondent without committing any error or deficiency in service therefore, was left with no other option but to deny for re -investment. Therefore, the petitioner was put to strictest proof of the allegations made by the petitioner against the respondent in accordance with law. The incident of 07.08.2008 was totally false, fabricated and concocted story of the petitioner. It was specifically stated that if the said incident would have been true, the petitioner could have taken necessary initiative or lodged a complaint against the respondent before any authorities or forum at that relevant period of time itself.

THE petitioner wrote letters to various authorities of the Postal Department giving his version of story and the higher authorities believing the said story to be true, had written letters to the respondents to follow the directions for re -investment of NSC and to avoid any public complaints. On receiving such letters and directions from the higher authorities, the respondent had informed his higher authorities about the actual facts of the case and made it clear that no application for reinvestment of maturity value of NSC had ever been submitted by the petitioner and if submitted the same would have been processed at the earliest and the respondent have no objection or denial to the same.

THE respondent afterwards himself asked the petitioner about the matter and asked the petitioner to submit the prescribed application form along with all documents for re -investment of maturity value of NSC and when the petitioner submitted the same in a prescribed form along with all documents on 17.03.2011, the respondent without making any delay processed and re -invested the same on the same day, i.e., 17.03.2011 itself. The said facts were also evident from the documents submitted by the petitioner along with his complaint.

THE District Forum vide order dated 14.06.2013 while dismissing the complaint observed as under: "Upon perusing the materials on record and after hearing the parties, I am of the considered view that the National Savings Certificates submitted by the complainant for reinvestment could not be accepted, as no proper application form was submitted along with the same and subsequently when the said application form was submitted, the opposite party accepted the National Savings Certificates for reinvestment. In such facts and circumstances, I come to the conclusion that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the instant complaint petition and the same is dismissed".

AGGRIEVED by the order of the District Forum, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission has dismissed the appeal by observing as under: "We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. No document was produced by the parties. No letter, notification etc., regarding amount for investment or re -investment of NSC has been produced before the District Forum. There was in fact no evidence worth the name. After the case was heard in this Commission, learned counsel for the appellant submitted before us Xerox copy of some information obtained through RTI Act. We are unable to accept such paper as the same is not in original and the same was not produced before the District Forum at the time of trial and before this Commission at the time of hearing of the appeal. Vide order dated 28.10.2011 the case was dismissed for non -prosecution. We find that it was restored to file on 19.01.2012 upon an application of the complainant. Such a provision for setting aside ex -parte decree or ex parte dismissal of a complaint and case thereunder has not provided by the Consumer Protection Act. Such ex parte decree or dismissal must come under revision to the State Commission and power to set aside such dismissal or decree rests with the State Commission only. The District Forum found no materials to allow the petition of the complainant. We find nothing to consider the claim of the complainant. There is no material on record to substantiate the allegation of deficiency in service. The District Forum clearly arrived at a finding that when the complainant did not submit application for re -investment the same could not be acted upon by the Sub Post Master. We find no ground to differ with the finding of the District Forum. In the result this appeal bears no merit and it is dismissed."

HENCE , the present revision petition.

REVISION petition has been filed along with an application for condonation of delay of 69 days. However, as per the office report, there is a delay of 80 days. The reasons given for the delay in the interim application no. 665 of 2015 are as under: The order of the State Commission was made available to the petitioner on 12.08.2014, however the petitioner contacted the counsel on 17.12.2014 and apprised about the facts and circumstances of the case and also handed over the brief of the case.

The petitioner due to his illness could not contact the counsel well within time as such the revision could not be drafted and filed within the stipulated period.

The delay in filing the revision petitioner within the stipulated period is neither intentional nor deliberate but only due to the ill health as the petitioner was suffering from back problem, knee and joint problems. The entire medical record commencing from 26.08.2014 till date are enclosed herewith.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have carefully gone through the records of the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner was very unwell and could not file the revision petition in time and the medical record regarding the relevant period has been placed on the file.

I have gone through application for condonation of delay as also the medical record placed on file by the petitioner. The application for condonation of delay is extremely vague and sketchy and has failed to give the day to day explanation for 80 days of delay. The fact remains that the revision petition was filed on 29.01.2015, i.e., 170 days of the order being passed by the State Commission Guwahati on 05.08.2014. The petitioner in his application has pleaded that it was due to his illness that he could not contact his counsel in time. There is no mention of the name of the counsel as well as when he contacted his counsel for the first time. Further, he has stated that he was suffering from back problems, knee and joint problems. The medical record placed on the file are in the nature of investigation reports with regard to the alleged knee pain. There is nothing on record to show that he was suffering from any serious illness or was advised bed rest which could have prevented him from approaching his counsel.

AT the same time, it is also well settled that "sufficient cause" with regard to condonation of delay in each case, is a question of fact.

IN the matter of Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, 2011 4 CPJ 63(SC), the Apex Court has highlighted the object of Consumer Protection Act particularly expeditious and in expensive remedy to the consumers. "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".

IN Balwant Singh Vs. Jagdish Singh and Ors., (Civil Appeal no. 1166 of 2006), decided by the Apex Court on 08.07.2010 it was held: "The party should show that besides acting bonafide, it had taken all possible steps within its power and control and had approached the Court without any unnecessary delay. The test is whether or not a cause is sufficient to see whether it could have been avoided by the party by the exercise of due care and attention. Advanced Law Lexicon, P. Ramanatha Aiyar, 3rd Edition, 2005.".

IN Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., 1962 AIR(SC) 361, it has been observed; "It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by S.5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the enquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant."

SIMILARLY in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., vs Kailash Devi and Ors, 1994 AIR(P&H) 45, it has been laid down that: "There is no denying the fact that the expression sufficient cause should normally be construed liberally so as to advance substantial justice but that would be in a case where no negligence or inaction or want of bona fide is imputable to the applicant. The discretion to condone the delay is to be exercised judicially i.e. one of is not to be swayed by sympathy or benevolence."

IN R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, 2009 2 Scale 108, it has been 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 present case is fully covered under the case laws cited above Supra. Further, the petitioner has failed to give any reasons to explain the day to day delay of 80 days.

ACCORDINGLY , I find that there is no "sufficient cause" to condone the delay of 80 days in filing the present revision petition. The application for condonation of delay is without any merit as well as having no legal basis and is not maintainable. Consequently, the present revision petition being time barred by limitation and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.