UNITED BANK OF INDIA vs Shib Durga Rolling Centre

THIS revision petition has been filed by the Petitioner/OP against the impugned order dated 18.02.2011 passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (in short, ''the State Commission '') in Appeal No.564 of 2010 - United Bank of India Vs. M/s. Shib Durga Rolling Centre by which, appeal was dismissed in default.

BRIEF facts of the case are that Complainant/Respondent filed complaint with the District Forum and by order dated 29.7.2010, District Forum allowed complaint and directed OP/Petitioner to return the original title deeds in respect of the landed property to the complainant within a month and to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-, but appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed in default by learned State Commission by the impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed along with application for condonation of delay. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner at admission stage on application for condonation of delay and perused record.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner came to know about the impugned order on 26.11.2012, and revision petition has been filed on 22.3.2013; hence, delay of 24 days in filing revision petition be condoned.

PERUSAL of record reveals that impugned order dismissing appeal in default was passed on 18.2.2011 and as per certified copy issued on 26.11.2012, free copy was issued to the parties on 7.3.2011. Petitioner has nowhere mentioned in its application for condonation of delay that petitioner or his Counsel has not received free copy issued by the learned State Commission. In such circumstances, it may be presumed that petitioner received free copy issued on 7.3.2011 and this revision petition has been filed on 22.3.2013 i.e. after more than 2 years and in such circumstances, inordinate delay of 1 year and 9 months in filing revision petition cannot be condoned. Perusal of application reveals that on 1.8.2012, Petitioner-Bank received notice of Execution Case No.124/2010 pertaining to this complaint and then Petitioner ''s Branch Manager contacted Advocate Sri Puranjay Das who assured that appeal will be restored. It was further mentioned in the application that Advocate was being contacted through letters, e-mails or phones, but no documentary evidence in support of this fact has been filed by the petitioner along with application for condonation of delay. It was further submitted in the application that on 17.11.2012, Police Officer came with Arrest Warrant for non-compliance of order of District Forum and thereafter, on 20.11.2012, Branch Manager appeared before District Forum and paid the amount of compensation and cost of litigation, as per order of District Forum and only after that Arrest Warrant was recalled by District Forum. It was further mentioned in the application that Petitioner-Bank applied for certified copy, which was received on 26.11.2012. It was further mentioned that Petitioner came to know about the fate of appeal only after the receipt of certified copy on 26.11.2012. This fact is apparently wrong because when the petitioner received Execution Notice on 1.8.2012 and further Police Officer came along with Arrest Warrant on 17.11.2012 and further when Branch Manager appeared before District Forum on 20.11.2012, the petitioner must have come to know about the fate of appeal. For the sake of arguments, even if, it is presumed that the petitioner came to know only on 26.11.2012 about the fate of appeal on receipt of certified copy, he should have filed revision petition immediately explaining delay of each day, but revision petition has been filed on 22.3.2013 i.e. almost after 4 months.

APPARENTLY , no satisfactory explanation has been given by the petitioner for inordinate delay of 1 year and 9 months for filing revision petition and in such circumstances, application for condonation of delay is liable to be dismissed in the light of the following judgmentspassed by the Hon ''ble Apex Court and the National Commission in (1) (1010) 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.

IN such circumstances, application for condonation of delay is dismissed and consequently, revision petition stands dismissed as time barred with no order as to costs.