Motia Construction Limited vs Captain Bhagat Singh

THE petitioner being aggrieved of the concurrent findings of the Foras below against him has preferred this revision petition. The revision petition has been filed after the expiry of period of 90 days with a delay of 140 days as per the petitioner and 125 days as per the computation done by the registry. The petitioner has thus moved an application for condonation of delay.

LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the delay in filing of revision petition is unintentional. Actually after the State Commission passed the impugned order, the Director of company decided to approach the National Commission against the impugned order and they also decided to amicably resolve the matter with the respondent/complainant. In this regard certain meetings were also conducted but when the negotiations failed in the month of December, 2014 the petitioner approached his counsel for legal opinion. The counsel requested petitioner to provide the record for drafting the revision petition but the record was lying with Shri Arun Kumar Batra, Advocate who was representing the petitioner before the State Commission. Shri Arun Kumar Batra provided that record in February, 2015. Thereafter, the revision petition was drafted and filed.

THE above explanation given by the petitioner is not satisfactory for the reason that it is bereft of the details. The petitioner has not specified the dates on which the Directors of the company met with the complainant to amicably resolve the matter. Otherwise also, if the Directors have taken decision to challenge the order of the State Commission, the petitioner should have filed the revision petition within the stipulated period of limitation. Further, the petitioner has tried to explain the delay after December, 2014 by taking a stand that the record of the case was not available as it was lying with Shri Arun Kumar Batra, Advocate who was representing the petitioner in the State Commission. No explanation has been given why the petitioner kept on sleeping over the matter and did not make any endavour to collect the record from the previous counsel if the Directors had already taken decision to file revision petition. Therefore, I am not inclined to accept the explanation particularly when the petitioner is a service provider and he by using the financial clout is trying to delay the fruits of concurrent findings of Foras below to the respondent/complainant. The law relating to the condonation of delay is well settled. In Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd, 1962 AIR(SC) 361, it has been observed as under: "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".

In R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, 2009 2 Scale 108 Apex Court has observed as follows: "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 in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, 2011 4 CPJ 63 (SC) 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 view of the above stated positon in law, I find no merit in the application for condonation of delay. Otherwise also, the petitioner has no case on merits because both the Foras below have returned concurrent finding of fact by reasoned orders which cannot be faulted. The revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission flows from Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which is limited to the extent of material irregularity or jurisdictional error. Neither any material irregularity nor any jurisdictional error has been shown on the part of the Foras below.

IN view of the discussion above, application for condonation of delay is dismissed. As a consequence, revision petition is dismissed as barred by limitation.