COMMANDANT vs KASHMIRA & 2 ORS.

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 31.03.2015 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No. 139/2015 - The Commandant, 29 Battalion Vs. Kashmira & Ors. by which, appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation.

Brief facts of the case are that Complainant / Respondent No.1 filed complaint before District forum against OP No. 2/petitioner and OP No. 1 and 3/Respondent No. 2 & 3 and learned District Forum vide order dated 1.11.2013 allowed complaint and directed OP No. 1 & 2 to pay Rs. 16 lakhs to the complainant along with Rs.25,000/- as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses. OP No. 2 filed appeal before learned State Commission along with application for condonation of delay and learned State Commission vide impugned order dismissed appeal as barred by 439 days against which, this revision petition has been filed along with application for condonation of delay.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that delay occurred in obtaining permission from various offices of the Government Department(s) and in translation of documents; hence, delay may be condoned and revision petition may be admitted.

In application for condonation of delay, petitioner submitted that learned State Commission passed order on 31.3.2015 and on 28.9.2015 received direction for filing appeal/revision and Pairvi Cell asked Counsel to prepare draft of appeal. It was further submitted that Counsel asked certain clarifications some of which were provided on 26.10.2015 and by letter dated 29.10.2015 asked certain information from DIG, GC, Pune and again reminder was given on 6.11.2015 and ultimately by letter dated 24.11.2015 petitioner was intimated that authority letter submitted by deceased is not available with their office. It was further submitted that then Counsel drafted revision petition and sent for signatures which was received back duly signed on 20.1.2016, but again time was taken in translating documents in English and revision petition was filed on 19.5.2016; so, delay may be condoned.

Perusal of application clearly reveals that no explanation has been given from 1.4.2015 to 28.9.2015 for not giving sanction for a period of six months. Some explanation has been given from 28.9.2015 to 24.11.2015. Again it appears that either Counsel took too much time in drafting revision petition or petitioner took time in signing revision petition which was received by Counsel on 20.1.2016. There is practically no explanation from 20.1.2016 to 19.5.2016 for not filing revision petition immediately. Merely because some documents required translation which was well-known to the petitioner and Counsel for the petitioner who was entrusted matter in September, 2015, delay of another four months after receiving duly singed revision petition cannot be condoned. Petitioner has not given satisfactory explanation for condoning inordinate delay of 316 days and delay cannot be condoned in the light of the following judgment passed by the Hon''ble Apex Court.

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."

In Ram Lal and Ors . Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd ., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 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."

Hon''ble Supreme Court after exhaustively considering the case law on the aspect of condonation of delay observed in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd . Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation reported in (2010) 5 SCC 459 as under; "We have considered the respective submissions. The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The legislature does not prescribe limitation with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that they do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek remedy without delay. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a period fixed by the legislature. To put it differently, the law of limitation prescribes a period within which legal remedy can be availed for redress of the legal injury. At the same time, the courts are bestowed with the power to condone the delay, if sufficient cause is shown for not availing the remedy within the stipulated time."

Hon''ble Apex Court in (2012) 3 SCC 563 - Post Master General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. and Anr . has not condoned delay in filing appeal even by Government

department and further observed that condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the Government departments.

Hon''ble Apex Court in 2012 (2) CPC 3 (SC) - Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority observed 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".

Thus, it becomes clear that there is no reasonable explanation at all for condonation of inordinate delay of 316 days. Appeal was also dismissed as barred by limitation. In such circumstances, application for condonation of delay is dismissed. As application for condonation of delay has been dismissed, revision petition being barred by limitation is also liable to be dismissed.

Consequently, the revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed as barred by limitation at admission stage with no order as to costs.