M/S. HUYNDAI MOTOR INDIA LIMITED & ORS. vs SAMEER SREEKUMAR & ORS.

By this Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), M/s Hyundai Motor India Limited and its Managing Director and Manager, Opposite Parties No. 1, 2 and 3 in the Complaint under the Act, call in question the correctness and legality of the orders dated 25.03.2014 and 21.10.2015, passed by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Thiruvananthapuram (for short "the State Commission") in Appeal No. 603/2012 and Restoration Application No. 4/2015 respectively. While by the first impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the Appeal, preferred by the Petitioners herein, in default, by the second one it has dismissed their Restoration Application, as, despite its direction, they had not taken any steps for issue of notice to the Respondents.

The effect of the orders impugned in the Revision Petition is that the order dated 30.04.2012, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Ernakulam (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint Case No. 338 of 2010, preferred by Respondent No.1, the Complainant, has attained finality. By the said order, the District Forum had partly allowed the Complaint, directing the Petitioners herein to jointly and severally replace the car of the Complainant with a new one, with liberty to them to get back the car in question, lying with their Dealer, Opposite Parties No.4 and 5.

The circumstances, necessitating filing of the Complaint are as under: 3.1 Lured by various assurances/amenities and hassle-free services of the Opposite Parties, on 25.04.2007 the Complainant purchased a brand new Santro XL Car, manufactured by the Petitioners, through their Authorized Dealer against sale consideration of 3,54,813/-. For the said purpose, the Complainant had also availed financial assistance from HDFC Bank. Within one week of its delivery, the car started giving problems, on account of which it was taken to the Authorized Service Station and after repairs, it was delivered back after five days. On 10.04.2009, while the Complainant was driving the car, a blast took place in the vehicle, on account of which he as well as a co-passenger, one of his friends, sustained serious injuries and the vehicle was also destroyed. Besides the medical expenses of 50,000/- incurred by the Complainant on his treatment, as the said incident had occurred on the eve of Prime Minister''s visit at Kochi, the Police also suspected some wrong doing on the part of the Complainant, resulting in great difficulty and hardship to him. Pursuant to the Complainant''s email dated 27.04.2009 in the matter, Petitioners representatives inspected the vehicle and assured the Complainant that it would be replaced with a new one. However, despite repeated requests from the Complainant, the vehicle in question was not replaced. In the said background, alleging that the vehicle had inherent manufacturing defects, the afore-noted Complaint came to be filed before the District Forum, wherein the Complainant had prayed for certain reliefs, mentioned in the Complaint.

Having suffered the adverse orders by the District Forum and the State Commission, though at the Appellate stage in default, the Petitioners are before me in the present Revision Petition.

It is pointed out by the office that the Revision Petition is barred by limitation, inasmuch as there is a delay of 1025 days in filing the same. An Application, seeking condonation of the delay, has also been filed with the Revision Petition. In paragraphs 2 - 7 thereof, the Petitioners have furnished the following explanation:

"2. That Certified Copy of the impugned order passed by the Ld. District Forum (it should be the State Commission) dated 21.10.2015 was not received by the Applicants from the Court after the passing of the aforesaid order neither the same was informed by the Counsel who was handling the matter for the Applicants before the Hon''ble State Commission.

It is pertinent to mention herein that the Applicants were unaware of the fact that the advocate for the Applicants also did not take steps to issue notice to respondents on 21.10.2015 and the Hon''ble State Commission dismissed the Restoration Petition non-prosecution. It is pertinent to mention that the advocate for the Applicants who was appointed before the Hon''ble State Commission did not pay the heed even to inform the Applicants regarding the status of the Restoration Petition.

It is submitted that the Applicants came to know about the status of the matter on 07.02.2017 when were in receipt of the notice for execution bearing E.A. 05/2017 issued by the Ld. District Forum.

It is pertinent to note that the Applicants have wasted no time in filing the Revision Petition before this Hon''ble Commission after the receipt of the Execution Petition on 07.02.2017.

It is submitted that many efforts were made (sic) to procure the Certified Copy of the order, through the counsels, by the Applicants, but all resulted in vain. It is to be noted that after a persistent thorough effort from the Applicant, he got the receipt of the copy of the Order passed by the Ld. District Forum (again it should be the State Commission) from some other source. It is submitted that after perusing the Copy of the Order dated 21.10.2015, the Applicants decided to file the Revision Petition against the impugned order of the Hon''ble State Commission.

It is to be noted that the Applicants drafted a Revision Petition based on the Copy of the order that has been procured by the Applicants."

In my opinion, the explanation furnished by the Petitioners is as vague as it could be and is absolutely unsatisfactory.

At the outset, it may be noted that as far as the limitation period provided for filing the Revision Petition is concerned, the time consumed in the proceedings subsequent to the passing of the first impugned order, dated 25.03.2014, including those relating to the filing and disposal of the Restoration Application and the Execution proceedings, initiated by the Complainant, has no relevance. It was a substantive order, which had to be challenged within the stipulated period of limitation of 90 days. Hence, going by the same, the office has rightly pointed out that there is a delay of 1025 days in filing the Revision Petition, and not of 508 days, as stated by the Petitioners in their Application. While the Application is conspicuously silent with respect to the receipt of substantive order dated 25.03.2014, neither there is any specific denial about receipt thereof nor any evidence has been adduced by the Petitioners, showing that it was not received by them. As regards the aforesaid inordinate delay, evidently the explanation furnished revolves around the order dated 21.10.2015, whereby the State Commission has dismissed the Restoration Application filed at their behest. Though the Petitioners have stated that they learnt about the matter on 07.02.2017, when they received notice in the Execution proceedings, but factually it is not so. From a perusal of the envelope placed on record by the Petitioners themselves in the paper-book at page 40, it is evident that certified copy of the order dated 21.10.2015 had been issued to the Petitioners on 08.01.2016. In the absence of any other cogent evidence in support of the Petitioners'' stated plea, the same is manifestly false and deserves to be out-rightly rejected. Further, even after receipt of the notice in the Execution proceedings, admittedly on 07.02.2017, when the Revision Petition, to be filed before this Commission, was already barred by limitation by over 2 1/2 years, the Petitioners took more than two months in filing the Revision Petition. Pertinently, there is not even a whisper in the Application if the Petitioners had sought any explanation from the Advocate concerned for his alleged failure to pursue the Appeal/Restoration Application filed on their behalf.

In view of the above, I have no hesitation in holding that not only the Petitioners have failed to make out a "sufficient cause" for condonation of inordinate delay of 1025 days in filing the Revision Petition, the explanation furnished lacks bonafides as well. I am convinced that condonation of the said inordinate delay in a stale matter would not only be travesty of justice, it would be in the teeth of the observations of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority [(2011) 14 SCC 578] . In the authoritative pronouncement, the Court has been pleased to observe that while deciding an application for condonation of delay, it must be borne in mind that entertainment of belated appeals and revisions in consumer matters after the expiry of the special period of limitation, prescribed under the Act, defeats the very object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes.

For the aforegoing reasons, I am not inclined to condone the afore-stated period of inordinate delay in filing the Revision Petition and would dismiss the Revision Petition on the short ground of limitation. Ordered accordingly.