DIRECTOR, HORTICULTURE vs SHIV PRASAD SAINI & 2 ORS.

This Revision Petition, under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), has been filed by the Director, Horticulture, Jaipur, against the order, dated

03.11.2015, passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Jaipur (for short "the State Commission") in Appeal No. 1259 of 2015. By the impugned order, the State Commission has rejected the Application filed by the Petitioner for condonation of delay in filing the Appeal. Consequently the Appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation.

The Appeal had been filed by the Petitioner herein and its Associate against the order, dated 24.04.2015, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jaipur-III (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint No. 546 of 2013 (Old Complaint No.358 of 2011), whereby the District Forum, while allowing the Complaint, preferred by Respondent No.1/Complainant had directed the Opposite Parties to pay to the Complainant the amount of 1,62,000/-, received as agricultural aid for constructing the green house, as also 30,000/-, spent by him for development of the land with interest @ 15% per annum from the date of deposit of the amount of aid with Opposite Party No.1 till realization. Besides, the Opposite Parties were also directed to pay to the Complainant 2,00,000/- as compensation towards monetary loss and mental agony as also 21,000/- as litigation expenses.

Aggrieved, the Petitioner filed the afore-noted Appeal before the State Commission, however, with a delay of 142 days. As afore-noted, an Application, praying for condonation of the said delay was filed along with the Appeal. In paragraphs 2 to 4 of the said application, the short and crisp explanation furnished was as under:

"2. That the learned District Consumer Protection Forum, Bhilwara in complaint No. 546/11/13 has passed an award dated 24.4.15.

That the copy of the award was received on 6.5.15 by the appellant hence the limitation for filing the appeal expired on 6.6.15.

That the delay of days occurred in official proceeding and due to summer vacation in courts advocate was not available in Jaipur which is a genuine reasonable cause for late filing of this Appeal."

Not being satisfied with the explanation furnished for condonation of the delay caused in filing of the Appeal, the State Commission declined to condone the delay and dismissed the Appeal.

Hence, the present Revision Petition.

Since the Appeal has been dismissed by the State Commission on the ground of delay, we have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner on the said question.

Having heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and carefully perused the explanation furnished for the delay, we are of the opinion that the State Commission was absolutely correct in coming to the conclusion that no sufficient cause had been made out for condonation of the delay. While in the application filed before the State Commission as well as in the present Revision Petition no specific date of filing of the Appeal has been indicated, the Counsel appearing for the Petitioner admitted that the same was filed with a delay of 142 days. No attempt had been made by the Petitioner to show any cause, leaving aside the sufficient cause, for the said delay. Though the Petitioner was duly represented by a Counsel before the District Forum, we fail to comprehend why the said Counsel did not bother to obtain a certified copy of the order passed by the District Forum and also intimate/furnish the same to the Petitioner. Admittedly, a copy of the said order was received by the Petitioner on 06.05.2015 but there was no averment as to how they had received the same and who had sent it to them at that belated stage. There was also no indication if they had asked for any explanation from their Counsel for the said lapse on his part. There was no explanation worth the name for the delay caused in filing the Appeal. Such casual and indifferent attitude on the part of the government functionaries has been deprecated by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Post Master General and Ors. V. Living Media India Limited And Anr., (2012) 3 SCC 563. Bearing in mind the afore-stated lackadaisical attitude of the Petitioner as also the observations of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority [(2011) 14 SCC 578] to the effect that while deciding an application for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Act for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Foras are entertained, we are of the opinion that the State Commission, for the reasons stated in the impugned order, was fully justified in declining to condone the delay of 142 days in filing the Appeal and consequently dismissing the same on the ground of delay. In regard to delay of such an extent it would be useful to make a reference to the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Sidgonda Patil Vs. Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 37183 of 2013 , decided on 17.12.2013, wherein the Apex Court had refused to condone the delay of even 13 days.

For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order, warranting interference in our limited Revisional Jurisdiction.

Consequently, the Revision Petition is dismissed in limine.