Nalla Kommalu S/O Kattaiah vs Warangal District Tngos Co -Operative Housing Society Limited

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against order dated 07 -06 -2012 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Andhra Pradesh (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No. 836/2010 Warangal District TNGOs Co -operative Housing Society ltd. and Anr. Vs. Nalla Kommalu, by which while allowing the appeal, order of the District Forum allowing complaint was set aside.

COMPLAINAN T /petitioner filed complaint before District Forum and learned District Forum allowed complaint and directed opposite party/ respondent to register plot in the name of complainant and further awarded cost of Rs.500/ -. Appeal filed by the opposite party was allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which this revision petition has been filed along with application for condonation of delay.

HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner on application for condonation of delay and perused record. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that delay in filing revision petition occurred on account of illness of his father, hence delay may be condoned.

PARA 2 of the application for condonation of delay runs as under: - - "That there is delay of 309 days in filing the Review Petition due to the fact that after passing of the impugned order by the Hon''ble State Commission the father of the petitioner seriously fell ill due to paralytic attack at his native place at Warangal and the petitioner was busy in regular treatment of his father, which took considerable time. Hence, the delay has been caused in filing the Revision petition which is bonafide and not deliberate, therefore, deserves to be condoned in the interest of justice and equity."

LATER on, petitioner filed additional affidavit and para 2 of the affidavit runs as under: - - "That there is delay in filing the Revision petition. The order dated 07.06.2012 passed by the State Commission Disputes Redressal Commission at Hyderabad in Appeal No. 836 of 2010. The delay caused due to the fact that the counsel for the petitioner did not inform the petitioner about the order passed by the State Commission Disputes Redressal Commission at Hyderabad in Appeal No. 836 of 2010. The petitioner has not received the order first copy of the order passed by the State Commission. After that the petitioner asked his counsel three -four times about the order of the State Commission. Therefore I have applied for certified copy of the order dt. 07.06.2012 passed by the State Commission Disputes Redressal Commission at Hyderabad in Appeal No. 836 of 2010 on dated 18 -12 -2012 and I have received the copy of the order dated 28 -12 -2012. The delay is not intentional and beyond the control of me. The delay is bonafide. I have consumed time for travelling from Warangal to New Delhi and searching the counsel for filing the Revision Petition. Hence delay has been caused in filing the Revision Petition."

IN application for condonation of delay petitioner submitted that father of petitioner seriously fell ill due to paralytic attack and petitioner was busy in regular treatment of his father. Whereas in the affidavit he has submitted that his counsel did not apprise him about the impugned order and ultimately he applied for certified copy on 18 -12 -2012 and he received copy on 28 -12 -2012 and he consumed time in filing revision petition while travelling from Warangal to New Delhi and searching counsel.

IMPUGNED order was passed by learned State Commission on 7th June, 2012 and revision petition has been filed on 31 -01 -2014. Office has reported that there was delay of 309 days in filing revision petition treating copy of order was received by the petitioner on 28 -12 -2012.

AS per affidavit time was consumed in travelling from Warangal to New Delhi and in searching counsel which explanation cannot be believed at all because about one year cannot be taken in travelling from Warangal to New Delhi and in searching counsel for filing revision petition. In application for condonation of delay petitioner submitted that his father seriously fell ill due to paralytic attack and petitioner was busy in regular treatment of his father. Petitioner has not filed any document pertaining to treatment of his father from December, 2012 to December, 2013.

PETITIONER has filed some medical prescriptions and purchase bill of medicine pertaining to prescription dated 24 -03 -2014 which has no relevance with application for condonation of delay. Petitioner has also filed photocopy of certificate dated 20 -03 -2014 issued by Dr. K. Ramesh in which it has been mentioned that father of petitioner is suffering from ailment from 04 -01 -2013 till today but neither any prescription nor any purchase voucher of medicine has been filed in support of this certificate and in such circumstances this certificate cannot be believed at all.

AS there is delay of 309 days in filing revision petition without any reasonable explanation, revision petition is liable to be dismissed as barred by limitation.

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."

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."

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 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".

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.

THUS , it becomes clear that there is no reasonable explanation at all for condonation of inordinate delay of 309 days. In such circumstances, application for condonation of delay is liable to be dismissed. As application for condonation of delay is to be dismissed, revision petition being barred by limitation is also liable to be dismissed.

CONSEQUENT LY , the revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed as barred by limitation at admission stage with no order as to costs.