STATE BANK OF PATIALA vs HARI GOBIND SINGH & ANR.

This Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), has been filed by the State Bank of Patiala, Opposite Party No.2 (for short "the Bank") in the Complaint, against the order, dated 08.04.2015, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (for short "the State Commission") in First Appeal No. 445 of 2012. By the impugned order, the State Commission has affirmed the view taken by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-VII, New Delhi (for short "the District Forum") to the effect that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Bank in not ensuring that the ATM machines installed by it function satisfactorily and properly, due to which the Respondent No.1/Complainant suffered a financial loss of 25,000/-, and consequently dismissed the Appeal.

The Appeal had been preferred by the Bank against the order, dated 28.03.2012, passed by the District Forum in Complaint No. DF.VII/100/2010/5252. By the said order, the District

Forum, while holding that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Bank, had directed the Bank to pay a sum of 25,000/- to the Complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 23.10.2009 till realization.

Being unsuccessful before the State Commission, in the afore-noted Appeal, the Bank is 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 88 days in filing the same. An application, praying for condonation of the said delay, has been filed alongwith the present Revision Petition. In paragraphs no. 2 to 5 of the said application, the Bank has furnished the following explanation: "2. That the Petitioner Bank received the certified copy of the Impugned Order on 14/04/2015. ....

That after receiving the certified copy of the Impugned Order the Petitioner Bank sent the same to its head office situated at The Mall Road, Patiala for instructions to take the further steps in pursuance to the Impugned Order, whereupon the Petitioner Bank received instructions to challenge the Impugned Order before this Hon''ble Commission from its head office in the month of August, 2015. Accordingly, the Petitioner Bank engaged the present counsel to file the above petition in August only.

That it is respectfully submitted that the present counsel for the Petitioner Bank could not prepare the above petition for the reason that this chamber was under construction and the said construction work has been completed on 22 September, 2015. Accordingly, after completing nd the said construction work, the present counsel for the Petitioner started preparing the above petition, which could be prepared on 5 October, th 2015 and accordingly, the above petition is being before this Hon''ble Commission on 8 October, 2015.

That in view of the above facts and circumstances, there is a delay of 146 days in filing the above petition. It is further submitted that the said delay is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the aforesaid reason, which are beyond the control of the Petitioner and its present counsel." 5. I have heard learned counsel for the Bank on the question of delay.

In my view, the explanation furnished by the Bank is vague to the core and wholly unsatisfactory. Admittedly, on 14.04.2015 the Bank had received the copy of the impugned

order. Yet, it did not take any steps to file the Revision Petition within the statutory period of 90 days, as stipulated in Regulation 14 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005, and ultimately filed the same on 09.10.2015, with a delay of 88 days, for which, in my opinion, there is absolutely no explanation. Even after receipt of copy of the impugned order, the Bank took four months in taking a decision in a petty matter, involving a sum of 25,000/-, to challenge the said order and assigning the matter to its Counsel. The said Counsel also took his merry time and prepared the Petition, to be filed, only on 05.10.2015, i.e. almost two months after assignment of the matter to him. The delay caused in drafting the Petition is sought to be condoned on the specious plea that Counsel''s chamber was under construction, which was completed on 22.09.2015. In the absence of any supporting documents, this plea of the Bank seems to be an afterthought and does not inspire confidence. The application is also conspicuously silent about the date-wise developments in the matter at Bank''s end, which shows nothing but the laxity on its part. Perhaps, because of the smallness of the amount, there was no sense of urgency and seriousness in pursuing the matter. The Bank has not shown any cause, constituting a ?sufficient cause'' for the said delay.

Recently, in Postmaster General and Ors. V. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr., (2012) 3 SCC 563, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has been pleased to observe as under : "28. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody, including the Government.

In our view, it is right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bona fide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few."

Bearing in mind the afore-stated facts as also the quantum of compensation awarded by the lower Fora, i.e. 25,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 23.10.2009 till realization, coupled with the observations of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Gurgaon Gramin Bank Vs. Khazani And Anr., IV (2012) CPJ 5 (SC), wherein the Apex Court had come heavily against the public authorities for litigating on trivial matters, I am not inclined to condone delay of 88 days, which in the given circumstances is inordinate, in filing of the present Revision Petition.

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