Morani Hyundai vs Yatinder Parkash Sharma

THIS revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 27.08.2012 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short ''the State Commission '') in FA No. 1611/2011, "M/s. Morani Hyundai Morani Cars Pvt. Ltd. versus Yatinder Parkash Sharma " and FA No. 1612/2011, "Yatinder Parkash Sharma versus M/s. Morani Hyundai Morani Cars Pvt. Ltd. " and orders dated 10.07.2013 passed in M.A. no. 32/2013 in both these appeals. These two appeals were preferred against the order dated 26.07.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jaipur allowing the consumer complaint in question. Through impugned order, the appeal filed by the OP/Petitioner was dismissed and the appeal filed by the complainant was allowed and the amount of compensation awarded to the complainant was enhanced.

BRIEF facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant Yatinder Parkash Sharma purchased a Hyundai Santro Car from the petitioner/OP on 09.03.2009 for a consideration of Rs.3,60,306/ -. It has been alleged in the complainant that the actual purchase date was 09.03.2009, but the petitioner/OP issued the bill on 12.03.2009 and the insurance risk cover was also issued on 09.03.2009. The whole payment and tax was received by the OP on 09.03.2009, but the registration certificate was prepared on 13.03.2009 and given to the complainant after one and a half months. The complainant alleged that the total cost of the car including the registration amount comes to Rs.3,74,746/ - but the OP received an amount of Rs.3,87,000/ - meaning thereby that an excess amount of Rs.12,254/ - was charged from the complainant. The complainant is also liable to receive an excess amount of Rs.18,015/ - from the OP on account of insurance risk cover. The complainant demanded the refund of excess amount of Rs.12,254/ - and insurance risk cover amount of Rs.18,015/ - along with Rs.3,00,000/ - for physical, mental, financial damages from the OP. The District Forum allowed the complaint vide their order dated 20.06.2011 and ordered the OP to pay excess amount of Rs.12,254/ - along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realisation, Rs.5,000/ - for harassment and Rs.2,000/ - towards litigation expenses. Two appeals were preferred against the order of the District Forum before the State Commission; the appeal filed by the OP was dismissed vide order dated 28.07.2012, whereas the appeal of the complainant was accepted and the OP was directed to pay a sum of Rs.12,254/ - for excess amount charged, Rs.18,015/ - for insurance risk cover, Rs.50,000/ - for harassment and Rs.10,000/ - as cost of litigation with interest @9% p.a. from the date of complaint, i.e., 25.06.2009. It is made out from record that the present petitioner/OP filed application dated 30.11.2012 before the State Commission for amendment of the order dated 27.08.2012 but the said application was dismissed on 14.12.2012 by the State Commission as none was present before the State Commission on that date. An application was filed by the petitioner/OP again before the State Commission on 06.03.2013 requesting for recalling the order dated 14.12.2012. The said application was dismissed on 22.04.2013 since the petitioner was not present before the State Commission on that date. Still another application was filed on 06.05.2013 before the State Commission for recall of the orders dated 14.12.2012 and 22.04.2013, but the same was dismissed vide impugned order dated 10.07.2013. It has been observed by the State Commission in their order dated 10.07.2013 that if the petitioner had any objection regarding the order dated 28.07.2012, he should have gone before the National Commission by way of revision petition. The State Commission also imposed a cost of Rs.10,000/ - on the petitioner.

AT the time of hearing before us, the learned counsel for the petitioner was asked to explain the delay of 238 days in filing the present petition before the National Commission. The learned counsel has drawn our attention to the application for condonation of delay filed along with the revision petition, wherein it has been stated that the delay occurred due to the filing of miscellaneous applications before the State Commission for obtaining clarifications about the impugned order and the said delay was neither intentional nor deliberate.

WE have examined the material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is very clear that the impugned order was passed on 27.08.2012, but the petitioner filed the present petition after a delay of 238 days. No valid explanation or convincing reasons have been advanced by the petitioner to explain this delay. Even the State Commission have observed that the petitioner filed miscellaneous applications before them three times and he wasted the precious time of the Commission because he did not present himself before the State Commission at the time of hearing. The State Commission even imposed a cost of Rs.10,000/ - upon the petitioner while dismissing the 3rd miscellaneous application filed by him. It is very clear that the order dated 10.07.2013 and the earlier order passed on 02.04.2013 and 14.12.2012 are in accordance with law, because the State Commission was not authorised to carry out any review on their own earlier order dated 27.08.12. This view has been taken by the Hon ''ble Supreme Court in "Rajeev Hitender Pathak and Ors. Vs. Achyut Kashinath Karekar and Anr. " [2011 9 SCC 541] according to which powers to review or recall its order do not lie with the State Commission or the District Forum. It has been held by the Hon ''ble Supreme Court in a number of recent judgements that unless there is a cogent and convincing explanation for the condonation of delay in filing the petition, the same should not be condoned. In R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari 2009 (2) SCALE 108, Hon ''ble Supreme Court has 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. "

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 (2) CPC 3 (SC) - Ansul 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 ". In the present case, there is clearly a delay of 238 days in filing the present petition and no cogent reason have been given for the condonation of delay. The factum of filing review applications a number of times before the State Commission is no ground for condonation of delay of 238 days in the present case. The revision petition is, therefore, ordered to be dismissed on ground of delay.