WHEELS WORLDER/ vs PRADEEP KUMAR KHURANA

-OPPOSITE party is the petitioner in the revision petition and appellant in the appeal. Revision petition arises out of the proceedings under Sections 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act initiated by the respondent-complainant. These proceedings under Sections 25 and 27 were initiated as the petitioner failed to comply with the order dated 18. 11. 1996 of the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission whereby complaint of the petitioner was allowed. Respondent had complaint about deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner in not repairing his new Montana car and then not delivering the same for a period of 4 years. Respondent had purchased the Montana car on 22. 3. 1998 from the petitioner. On 2. 7. 1998 while the car was being taken for second free service its differential cage had broken and the car had to be towed to the workshop. While the petitioner contended that the differential cage had broken on account of accident, the respondent''s case was that it was on account of technical fault. Petitioner wanted the respondent to have insurance claim. But the Surveyor appointed by the Insurance Company was of the view it was not because of accident and differential cage had broken on account of manufacturing defect. However, petitioner raised a bill of Rs. 16,000 which the respondent refused to pay as according to him damage occurred during the warranty period.

ON 4. 4. 1991 respondent filed complaint before the State Commission. During the pendency of the complaint car was delivered to the respondent on 7. 5. 1992 without charging any amount. Respondent alleged gross deficiency in service. He said he was a medical practitioner and suffered his profession on account of being deprived of the car for all this period. State Commission allowed the complaint and rejected various preliminary objections raised by the petitioner-opposite party. State Commission ordered that petitioner shall pay Rs. 30,000 as compensation with interest @ 18% per annum from 2. 7. 1988 to 7. 5. 1992. State Commission also directed further interest at this very rate on the amount of Rs. 82,000 being price of the car for the same period. A sum of Rs. 3,000 was awarded as costs.

Petitioner did not file any appeal against this order. When the revision petition was taken up it was pointed out by the Counsel for the petitioner that since the order of the State Commission had become final it had to be complied. Thereupon this appeal was filed on 2. 4. 2002. Along with this, an application for condonation of delay was also filed. It was submitted that copy of the order of the State Commission was not received by the petitioner, therefore, it could not file appeal. However, record shows that the petitioner had been contesting the complaint and was aware of the order of the State Commission. In any case it became aware of the order on 17. 4. 1997 when the State Commission passed order under Section 27 of the Act and against that order, petitioner filed revision petition before this Commission on 28. 4. 1997. Along with the grounds of appeal, certified copy of the order dated 18. 11. 1996 of the State Commission was filed which shows that petitioner applied for copy of the order on 18. 10. 2001 and it was ready on 31. 10. 2001. However, delivery was taken on 21. 11. 2001. Index of the grounds of appeal shows that the appeal was prepared on 3. 12. 2001 and it came be to filed on 2. 4. 2002. It, therefore, surprises us as to how petitioner/appellant could allege that it had no knowledge of the order of the State Commission on the complaint filed by the respondent.

WE find no ground whatsoever to condone the delay in filing appeal. In fact it appears that the petitioner has come up with a make up story of not having received the copy of the order of the State Commission to get the delay condoned. Otherwise, circumstances point to the fact that appellant was negligent in filing the appeal. We find no sufficient grounds made in the application for condonation of delay and it is dismissed, so is the appeal. Coming to the revision petition when the impugned order had become final, there cannot be any question to challenge the same in proceedings under Section 27 of the Act. When the revision petition came up before us for the first time on 29. 4. 1997 we ordered stay of imprisonment on depositing a sum of Rs. 50,000 within three weeks from date of the order. This amount shall be payable to the respondent. The revsion petition is dismissed. We however, grant four weeks'' time to comply with the order dated 18. 11. 1996 of the State Commission. Respondent/complainant shall be entitled to cost both in revision and appeal which we assess at Rs. 2,500. Revision and Appeal dismissed.