Shri Dinesh Kumar Bansal vs ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE

THIS revision petition has been filed by the Petitioner/complainant against the impugned order dated 25.11.2011 passed by the Uttrakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dehradun (in short, ''the State Commission '') in Appeal No. 117 of 2007 - Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs. Shri Dinesh Kumar Bansal by which, while allowing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was set aside.

BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner had an O.D. Account No.156 with the OP/respondent. On 21.12.2005, when the petitioner went to the bank for withdrawing some money, he found that Rs.80,000/- had been transferred fraudulently from his account to the account of one Smt. Santosh Aswal by Asstt. Manager of the Bank. As no action was taken by the respondent on his request, he filed complaint alleging deficiency on the part of OP before the District Forum. OP contested complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to pay Rs.80,000/- along with 12% p.a. interest to the complainant and further directed to pay cost of Rs.1,000/-. Appeal filed by the OP/respondent was allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed. Petitioner filed revision petition along with application for condonation of delay.

HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner at admission stage on application for condonation of delay.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that on account of bed rest due to illness, revision petition could not be filed in time; hence, delay may be condoned. Perusal of application for condonation of delay reveals that it has not been mentioned in the application for condonation of delay that how many days delay is to be condoned. As per office report, there is delay of 127 days in filing revision petition. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the application for condonation of delay runs as under: "2. That due to some family problem and financial constraints, the petitioner could not come to the Hon ''ble Commission within time. 3. That the delay caused is unintentional and bonafide and beyond the control of the petitioner ".

IN support of this application, petitioner filed affidavit on 2.5.2013 and paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of affidavit run as under: "2 That the impugned order was passed on 25.11.2011 and the petitioner applied for the same on 7.12.2011 which was furnished to the lawyer of the petitioner on 7.12.2011 and same was sent by the lawyer of the petitioner to the petitioners. After getting the copy of the judgement, then a legal opinion was sought from the local lawyer then the lawyer suggested to file the revision petition. 3. Then the petitioner was suffering from the Tuberculosis and fever from the last 3 months therefore the Doctor who was treating the petitioner advised regular treatment and rest for about six months. The true copy of the medical certificate is annexed as Annexure A-1. 4. That the petitioner spent so much time and money on the treatment. After get over the problem the petitioner approached the present lawyer, who prepared and filed the present petition therefore the delay caused is unintentional and bonafide and beyond the control of the petitioner ".

IN support of affidavit, he further filed medical certificate dated 21.12.2011 according to which, on account of fever, T.B., he was advised to take rest from 15.7.2011 to 21.12.2011. In the application for condonation of delay, he has mentioned that revision petition could not be filed in time due to family problem and finance constraints, whereas in the affidavit he has mentioned that revision petition could not be filed due to suffering from T.B. and fever, which are contrary to each other. Even if we believe medical certificate according to which petitioner was advised to take rest from 15.7.2011 to 21.12.2011, he has not given any reason explaining delay in filing revision petition on 11.7.2012.

AS there is inordinate delay of 127 days, this delay cannot be condoned in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon ''ble Apex Court and the National Commission in (1) (2010) 5 SCC 459 - Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and Anr.; (2) (2012) 3 SCC 563 - Office of The Chief Post Master General and Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. and Anr. and (3) 2012 (2) CPC 3 (State Commission) - Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority. As there is no explanation for condonation of delay, from 21.12.2011 to 11.7.2012, this application for condonation of delay is liable to be dismissed.

CONSEQUENTLY , revision petition filed by the petitioner stands dismissed at admission stage on the count of delay alone. As the Petitioner has misled the Court in the application for condonation of delay as well as in the affidavit and has taken contradictory stand, we deem it proper to impose Rs.5,000/- as costs to be deposited by the petitioner with the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission by way of bank draft within four weeks. In case, the petitioner fails to deposit the cost within the prescribed period, then he shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. till realization.

LIST for compliance on 4.7.2013.