Paramesh, Managing Director vs SHIVASHANKARAPPA

THIS Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act") has been filed by Opposite Party No.1, the Dealer, against order dated 10.03.2011 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Bangalore (for short "the State Commission") in First Appeal No. 747 of 2011. By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the said Appeal, preferred by the Petitioner herein, questioning the correctness of order dated 24.01.2011, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Chitradurga (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint No.98 of 2010, preferred by Respondent No.1/Complainant. Partly allowing the complaint, the District Forum had directed the Opposite Parties, including the Petitioner, to deliver a new Maruti Suzuki Dzire VDI car of the same model and to pay life tax, insurance and registration charges to the Complainant and to jointly and severally refund the sale price of the car, i.e. Rs.5,81,088/ - with 10% interest from 03.08.2009 till the date of realization, after deducting Rs.40,000/ - already paid by the Petitioner on 13.12.2009. Besides, the Opposite Parties were also directed to pay Rs.75,000/ - as compensation towards mental agony and travelling expenses etc. and Rs.4000/ - as litigation costs.

IT is pointed out by the office that this Revision Petition is barred by limitation, as there is inordinate delay of 1161 in filing the same. An application for condonation of the said delay has been filed along with the Revision Petition. In paragraphs no. 3 to 6 of the said application, the explanation furnished is as under: "3. That the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the Ld. District Forum being CC no. 98/2010 by making the petitioner and the respondent no.3 as parties to the complaint and the same was disposed off by the Ld. District Forum on 24.01.2011. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. District Forum the petitioner and the respondent no.3 filed separate Appeals being Appeal No. 747/2011 and 933/2011 respectively. In both the Appeals the petitioner is one of the parties to the case and the cause of action is one and the same. It seems the appeal filed by the petitioner was disposed off by the Ld. State Commission on 10.03.2011 and the same was not known by the petitioner herein. The petitioner came to know about the order only on 24.06.2014 when it received the execution notice from the Ld. District Forum. A copy of the notice received by the petitioner herein in E.P. No.2/2014 is marked and annexed herewith as ANNEXURE P -9 to this application.

That on enquiry the petitioner came to know that the Appeal filed by the respondent no.3 i.e. MSIL was disposed off on 20.02.2014 and the Appeal filed by the petitioner was disposed off on 10.03.2011.

That on 01.09.2014 the petitioner inspected the file of the Ld. State Commission and noted the copy of order and contacted the present counsel at Delhi, who advised them for sending of papers. It took 10 days time to arrange the file from the local counsel and sent the file to the present counsel who prepared the R.P. and sent for signatures. That on further examination the petitioner came to know that MSIL also filed a Revision Petition being R.P. No. 2680/2014 and Hon''ble Commission after hearing from the petitioner in RP/2680/2014 was pleased to issue notice to the respondents no. 1 and 2 and stayed the Ld. State Commission order.

That the petitioner has also a good prima facie case and balance of convenience in its favour and no prejudice would be caused to the respondents no. 1 and 2, if this application is allowed. That though the petitioner filed the present revision within 90 days from the date of knowledge since technically there is a delay in filing the present Revision from the date of pronouncement of the order to till filing the present Revision Petition."

WE have heard learned counsel for the Petitioner on the question of delay. To say the least, the explanation furnished is wholly vague and unsatisfactory. The contention of the Petitioner that he was not aware of the impugned order dated 10.03.2011 and came to know about the same only after a lapse of more three years and three months, i.e. on 24.06.2014, when he received a notice in the execution proceedings, is completely false and not acceptable. From a perusal of the impugned order, we find that it had been passed in the presence of two Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, who were obliged to inform the Petitioner about the same. However, even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that his Counsel had not informed him about the impugned order, there was no reason for him to wait for over three years in ascertaining the status of the Appeal pending before the State Commission. There is absolutely no explanation for the period from 10.03.2011 to 24.06.2014. The fact that he had not asked for any explanation from the Counsel as to why he did not inform him about the impugned order for over three years, tends to show that the entire explanation is concocted and does not inspire confidence. The negligence and lethargy on the part of the Petitioner is writ large. Merely because the Manufacturer has also filed the Revision Petition, assailing the order of the lower Fora, is no ground to condone the delay caused in the present Revision Petition. Since in the Revision Petition filed by the Manufacturer, the Petitioner is a party, he would have a right to be heard in the same. In view of the above, we are of the view that the explanation furnished by the Petitioner is not only vague, it also lacks bonafides and, therefore, does not merit acceptance.

BEARING in mind the afore -stated facts and the observations of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, 2011 14 SCC 578 to the effect that while deciding an application for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Act for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the consumer foras are entertained, we are not inclined to condone an inordinate delay of 1161 days in filing of the present Revision Petition.

CONSEQUENTLY , the Revision Petition is dismissed in limine on the ground of limitation.