Secretary, Gridco vs Ramesh Chandra Kedia

THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the State Commission dated 27.12.2012, whereby the appeal filed by the GRIDCO, predecessor in interest of the petitioner was dismissed for non -prosecution, as no one appeared on behalf of the appellants. Since there is a delay of more than one year in filing the revision petition, I.A. No. 4397/2014 has been filed seeking condonation of delay of as many as 467 days in filing the said petition.

THE application, to the extent it is relevant for our purpose reads as under: - 6. "That such being the situation, after the C.D. Appeal was dismissed for non -prosecutin on 27.12.2012 the Hon''ble State Commission communicated the same to GRIDCO on 10.04.2013 and since by that time WESCO have already taken over the function of distribution, the GRIDCO communicated the fact of dismissal of the C.D. Appeal to WESCO on 06.06.2013. This is how there has been some delay in receipt of information by the WESCO with regard to the dismissal of the C.D. Appeal for non -prosecution.

That the Petitioners then approached the conducting counsel and thereafter prepared and filed a misc. case for restoration of the said C.D. Appeal No. 193 of 1999 under a wrong notion instead of filing a revision then. The said application for restoration was dismissed by the Hon''ble State Commission. Thereafter, after examining the matter thoroughly the present revision petition has been filed before this Hon''ble Commission. 8. That it is further most respectfully submitted that the decision taken to prefer the present revision petition before this Hon''ble Commission involved various authorities in the administrative hierarchy of the Petitioner Corporation concerned. The same had to be routed through different paraphernalias in as much as each authority applied its mind so as to reach a conclusive opinion whether to prefer any appeal/revision before the higher forum keeping in mind the merits of the case.

Thus, only after getting the final approval, the Petitioners have collected the necessary documents for preparation of eh instant revision petition which has been prepared and filed thereafter as expeditiously as was possible. In the above circumstances, there has been a delay in filing the present revision petition."

IT would thus be seen that this is petitioner''s own case that the impugned order was conveyed to by GRIDCO to WESCO on 06.06.2013. The period of limitation prescribed for filing the revision petition against the order of the State Commission had already expired by that time. The petitioner, therefore, was expected to be extra vigilant in filing the revision petition in case it was seeking to challenge the order passed by the State Commission. The petitioner, presumably under wrong legal advice filed an application before the State Commission seeking restoration of the appeal which the State Commission had dismissed on 27.12.2012. The said application however was filed on 13.01.2014 i.e. more than seven months after the petitioner had already received a copy of the impugned order. There is absolutely no explanation for the aforesaid abnormal delay of seven months in filing the simple application seeking the restoration of the appeal which the State Commission had dismissed for non -prosecution. Though, it is vaguely alleged in the application that the decision to prefer revision petition involved various authorities in the administrative hierarchy of the petitioner corporation, there is no such averments as regards filing of the application seeking restoration of the appeal. Therefore, the period of more than seven months between 06.06.2013, when the copy of the impugned order was received by WESCO and 13.01.2014 when the application for restoration of appeal was filed before the State Commission remains practically unexplained. This is petitioner''s own case that the application seeking restoration of the appeal was dismissed on 07.03.2014. Even thereafter, the petitioner did not exhibit any urgency in the matter and did not immediately come to this Commission to challenge the order passed by the State Commission. The revision petition came to be filed only on 07.07.2014. Again, there is no convincing explanation for the said delay except a bald averment that the decision to file the revision petition involved various authorities in the administrative hierarchy of the petitioner corporation. However the application does not explain, as to where the file remained during the period from 07.03.2014, when the application for restoration of the appeal was dismissed by the State Commission to 07.07.2014, when this revision petition came to be filed.

ONE of the objectives behind enactment of Consumer Protection Act is to render expeditious relief to the Consumer who approaches a Consumer Forum with a grievance. It is primarily to achieve this objective that the Act enjoins upon the Consumer Forum to decide the complaint within a period of three months. The said objective is bound to be defeated if such abnormal delays are condoned without having been satisfactorily explained.

FOR the reasons stated hereinabove, we are satisfied that the abnormal delay of more than one year in filing the revision petition does not stand properly explained. The application seeking condonation of delay is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed as barred by limitation.