MAHAVEER SINGH vs MANAGER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 7.3.2014 passed by the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No. 466 of 2014 Mahaveer Singh Vs. Manager, Punjab National Bank and Ors. by which, appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation.

BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner filed complaint before District forum for compensation which was dismissed by learned District Forum vide order dated 3.10.2013. Complainant filed appeal before State Commission along with application for condonation of delay which was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.

HEARD learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that inspite of reasonable explanation for condonation of delay before State Commission, learned State Commission committed error in dismissing application for condonation of delay and dismissing appeal as barred by limitation; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside and delay may be condoned and matter may be remanded back to learned State Commission. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.

IT is not disputed that learned District forum vide order dated 3.10.2013 dismissed complaint. As per application for condonation of delay filed before State Commission, Counsel for the complainant received copy of District forum order on 4.10.2013, which was misplaced by the Advocate and the same was traced on 29.11.2013 and complete paper book was handed over to the complainant by his Advocate on 30.11.2013. Complainant further submitted that he being poor farmer had to manage expenses for filing appeal which could be done on 15.12.2013 and when he was coming to Lucknow on 16.12.2013, he met with an accident in Meerut while traveling on two -wheeler and sustained injuries and he recovered from injuries on 18.2.2014. It was further submitted that as there was marriage on 21.02.2014 in the family of Counsel for the complainant, appeal was drafted on 28.2.2014 and filed on 5.3.2014.

PETITIONER has not attached affidavit of Counsel for the petitioner, who could have stated that after receiving order of District Forum on 4.10.2013, it was misplaced and traced on 29.11.2013 and in such circumstances; no reliance can be placed on this averment that copy of order of District Forum was misplaced and traced only after about 2 months. Petitioner further submitted in the application that on 16.12.2013 he met with an accident, sustained injuries and recovered only on 18.2.2014 meaning thereby, two months'' time was taken in recovering from injuries. Petitioner has not placed any document on record which could have proved that he sustained any injury in any accident and took two months'' time in recovery. He should have filed copy of FIR, injury report and treatment record of hospital or any doctor from whom he took treatment. Thus, it appears that there is no explanation from 4.10.2013 to 18.2.2014 and learned State Commission has not committed any error in dismissing application for condonation of delay.

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., 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."

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, 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 Post Master General and Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. and Anr., 2012 3 SCC 563 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 (SC) Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority,2012 2 CPC 3 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".

IN the light of aforesaid discussion, I do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petition is dismissed at admission stage.

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