DHARAM RAJ vs Ramesh Publishing House

THERE is a delay of 58 days in filing this revision petition. The petitioner has filed an application for condonation of delay. We have perused the application and found that the reasons given by the petitioner in support of his application are not at all satisfactory and do not constitute sufficient cause to enable us to condone the delay. Admittedly, the petitioner received a copy of the impugned order dated 8.11.2010 by post on 4.12.2010 and he had 90 days '' time to take action required for filing the revision petition. The main reason given in favour of his request is that he had been shuttling between the DCDRF and SCDRC but could not reach to file and hence caused the delay of 58/57 days in filing the revision petition. We do not consider this as sufficient cause for condonation of delay and hence are not inclined to condone the delay of 58/57 days in filing the petition and the petition can be dismissed on this ground alone. However, in the interest of justice, we have looked into the merits of the case as well.

BRIEFLY stated, the petitioner, who is the complainant in this case, is a practising Advocate at Panipat. He had purchased a book of general knowledge from the book depot of opposite party No. 3/respondent No. 3. In the book, the publication year was printed as 2001. However, according to the petitioner, the general knowledge information printed in the said book was upto the year 1998 and also some of the answers given were wrong. It is the grievance of the petitioner that he had to appear in the SSC examination of graduate level and had very short time at his disposal to prepare for this examination. Since the book sold by the opposite party contained outdated information even though the year of publication was mentioned as 2001, he could not prepare himself well to appear in the aforesaid examination. Thus, alleging it to be a case of deficiency in service, he sought compensation of Rs. 2 lakh along with interest @18% per annum besides litigation expenses from the opposite party, through a complaint filed by him before the District Forum. On being noticed, the opposite parties appeared and resisted the claim of the complainant by taking the plea that he being an Advocate has misused the process of law for which they propose to take action separately. They also took the plea that the complainant never approached the opposite party after purchasing the book in question. Denying any kind of deficiency of service they prayed for dismissal of the complaint. On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record by them, the District Forumvide its order dated 28.4.2003 accepted the complaint in terms of the following reliefs: "....... We direct the respondents jointly and severally to pay the compensation of Rs. 2.00 lacs to the petitioner, within a period of one month from the date of present announcement i.e. 28.4.2003, failing which, the petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ Rs. 9% per annum from the date of announcement, till the date of realization. No order as to costs. "

Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Forum, the opposite parties, respondents herein, filed an appeal before the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula ( ''State Commission '' for short).Vide its order dated 8.11.2010, the State Commission accepted the appeal and set aside the impugned order of the District Forum and dismissed the complaint. It is against this order of the State Commission, that the present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner.

WE have heard the petitioner in person and perused the record. It is seen that the State Commission has dismissed the appeal on the ground of territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum as well as on merits. The main contention of the petitioner in person is that even though at the beginning of the book, the year of publication is mentioned as 2001, the book actually contained out-dated information and hence he could not prepare well with reference to the questions asked in the SSC examination. He, however, admitted that he has not produced contents of the syllabus with reference to which he had alleged that the material given in the book was out-dated. The State Commission while accepting the appeal of the opposite parties and setting aside the order of the District Forum, has recorded the following reasons in its detailed order in support of its decision against the petitioner: "At the very outset the question for consideration before us is whether the District Consumer Forum, Panipat has territorial jurisdiction to decide the complaint The impugned order has been assailed on the ground that on the General Knowledge book allegedly purchased by the respondent/complainant it was printed that if any dispute arose between the parties, the same was subject to the jurisdiction of Delhi Courts. Even this plea was raised by the appellant-opposite parties before the District Consumer Forum while submitting the written reply but the District Consumer Forum, Panipat has not considered this aspect. However, it was pleaded that in the complaint that he had purchased the book at Panipat, therefore, the District Consumer Forum, Panipat has jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. The case of the complainant does not confirm any jurisdiction on the District Consumer Forum, Panipat. In view of Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, which is reproduced as under - 11. Jurisdiction of the District Forum -(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed [does not exceed Rupees twenty lakh]. (2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction - (a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or [carries on business or has a branch office or] personally works for gain; or (b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or [carries on business or has a branch office], or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or [carry on business or have a branch office], or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or (c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. In the instant case the complainant has not produced on record any evidence that he had purchased the book at Panipat from respondent No. 3, therefore, mere pleading made by the complainant cannot be taken as trustworthy and the complaint was not entertainable. Another grievance of the complainant before the District Forum was that some of the answers given in the General Knowledge book were not correct as a result of which his career is ruined and he was unable to clear the SSC examination. This plea of the complainant is further not tenable for the reason that it has nowhere been established on record that the questions which were asked in the SSC examination were wrongly printed in the book. There is nothing on record to suggest that the career of the complainant has been spoiled/ruined due to the wrong answers printed in the book of General Knowledge. Thus, in absence of any evidence it cannot be said that any harm or injury was caused to the complainant due to the wrong printing of the answers in the book and detail of marks obtained by him in General Knowledge paper is not mentioned. The possibility cannot be ruled out that the complainant might not have prepared the paper well due to shortage of time or he has scored marks in all other papers declaring him pass and failing in the General Knowledge paper. The case may be taken from any angle it has not legs to stand. In view of the above, we are of the view that the complainant has filed a false and frivolous complaint under the garb of the black gown worn by him as an Advocate. The District Consumer Forum has not considered all these aspects and committed great error while granting relief to the complainant with no evidence on the record and as such the impugned order under challenge is not sustainable in the eye of law. "

WE agree with the view taken by the State Commissionvide its impugned order, which is a well-reasoned order. There is nothing produced by the petitioner which would show any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. In the circumstances, we do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order and the revision petition devoid of any substance stands dismissed both on the ground of limitation as well as on merits. Revision Petition dismissed.