APEEJAY PVT. LTD. vs BISWAJIT KUMAR DAS

Challenge in this Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), is to order dated 24.8.2015 in Appeal No. 538 of 2015 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal, Kolkata (for short "the State Commission"). By the impugned order, the State Commission dismissed the Appeal preferred by the Opposite Party, Apeejay Pvt. Ltd. on the ground of limitation.

The brief facts as set out in the Complaint are that the Complainant had deposited the following amounts with the Opposite Party, i.e. Apeejay Securities Pvt. Ltd. as under: 1. V-Sat Security deposit (Refundable after 3 years Rs. 50,000/- (fifty thousand).

One time payment of V-Sat Security Deposit of Rs. 75,000/- (non interest bearing non-refundable).

For software licence cost per segment Rs. 12500/- on 31.3.2006 through DD of U.B.I. Ber-bampore-Gerabazar Branch. 3. The Complainant averred that the Opposite Party had subsequently wound up their business and therefore, he is entitled for refund of Rs. 75,000/- as the business was terminated and liquidated by the Opposite Party. He further pleaded that they had agreed for refund of Rs. 12,500/- if he produced the termination letter but despite several requests, there was no response. Hence, the Complaint before the District Forum seeking the following amounts: 75,000 Rs. V-Sat Security Refund 12,500 Rs. refund for software charge. Cost of the suit = Rs. 1450.00

Interest @ 10%= Rs.61,000.00

Mental Hazarda= Rs. 50,000.00

Total claim = Rs. 1,99,500/-

(Rupees one lac ninety nine thousand five hundred only.

The Opposite Party was not present and did not choose to file written version before the District Forum.

The District Forum allowed the Complaint on the ground that the business had been terminated and liquidated by the Opposite Party and that the Complainant had established his case by filing the receipt of Rs. 75,000/- issued by the Opposite Party. The District Forum also observed that the Opposite Party had written letter dated 18.12.2015 to one Mr. Sitaram Das, Secretary, Murshidabad District Consumers'' Association objecting that there was no proof that the said demand draft has been deposited by the Complainant. The Forum having gone through the entire material on record, observed that the receipt and the documents establish the Complainant''s case and directed the Opposite Party to refund Rs. 75,000/-; Rs. 12,500/-; and costs of Rs. 1,000/- to be paid within 30 days from the date of the receipt of the order, failing which the Opposite Party shall pay costs of Rs. 50/- for each day''s delay which would be deposited in the State Consumer Welfare Fund.

Aggrieved by the said Order, the Opposite Party preferred an Appeal before the State Commission with a delay of 110 days. The State Commission dismissed the delay condonation petition on the ground that there was no merit in it and consequently the Appeal was also dismissed as barred by limitation.

The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner submitted that they had no knowledge of the proceedings till 27.1. 2015 and that the certified copy of the order was applied on 13.2. 2015, obtained on 4.3.2015 and was received by the Petitioner''s Advocate in Kolkata on 9.3.2015. He further submitted that the Advocate had taken sometime to draft the Memorandum of Appeal. The Deputy General Manager -Legal had fallen ill with Jaundice and was unable to attend to the matter till 26.4.2015 and, therefore, there was a delay of 110 days in filing the Appeal before the State Commission. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner also contended that the Petitioner Company is nowhere connected with Apeejay Securities Pvt. Ltd. The learned counsel for the Complainant contended that Apeejay Securities Pvt. Ltd. is not existing as of today and is a part and parcel of Apeejay Pvt. Ltd. with the same registered address and common Directors viz. Mr. Jit Paul and Mr. Swaraj Paul.

A brief perusal of the material on record shows that Apeejay Securities Pvt. Ltd. is a part and parcel of Apeejay Pvt. Ltd. The ground that the Deputy General Manager (Legal) was ill and no action could be taken from 9.3.2015 till 27.4.2015 is without any substance. It is submitted that the Legal Official was suffering from Jaundice and that he was discharged on 6.4.2015 and he could not join regular work till 27.3.2015. When it is a Private Limited Company, it is also not understood as to how the entire proceedings had stopped with the illness of one single person. If the Petitioner Company had nothing to do with the Apeejay Pvt. Ltd., it is not understood as to how they had obtained the certified copy. The State Commission had rightly gone into all the reasons given for condondation of delay and dismissed the Petition.

In Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) The Hon''ble Apex Court held as under: "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".

It must be mentioned here that the authority in the case of Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (supra) pertains to the Consumer Protection Act.

In R.B. Ramalingam Vs. R.B. Bhuvaneswari, 2009 (2) Scale 108 , the Supreme Court observed as under:- "We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the Special 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".

In the afore-mentioned Judgments, the Hon''ble Supreme Court clearly laid down the law that when there are no substantial reasons and any inordinate delay need not be condoned. Even in the instant case, the delay is of 110 days without any substantial reasoning.

Even on merits, it is observed that the Complainant had established his case before the District Forum by filing the receipt for Rs. 75,000/- and also the termination letter based on which the District Forum had directed the Opposite Party to refund Rs. 75,000/-; Rs. 12,500/- with costs of Rs. 1,000/-, I do not find it a fit case to exercise our limited revisional jurisdiction as far as the merits of the case are concerned.

Keeping the facts and circumstances of the case in view, to the directions given to the Opposite Party to pay costs of Rs. 50/- for each day''s delay, which would be deposited in the State Consumer Welfare Fund, is set aside.

In the result, this Revision Petition is allowed in part modifying the order of the District Forum only with respect to direction of payment of Rs. 50/- per day for delay in payment to be deposited in the State Consumer Welfare Fund. The rest of the order of the District Forum stands confirmed. No order as to costs.