YOGENDRA GUPTA S/O HARI SHANKER GUPTA vs MANAGER, UNITED TRUCKS & ANR.

This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the impugned order dated 24.07.2014, passed by the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as "the State Commission") in Appeal No. 1937/2007, Yogendra Gupta vs. United Trucks & Ors., vide which, the said appeal was dismissed in default for non-prosecution as well as on merits, and in the process, the order dated 05.07.2007, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gorakhpur in Consumer Complaint No. 324/2004, filed by the present petitioner, allowing the said complaint, was upheld.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that as stated in consumer complaint no. 324/2004, the petitioner/complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 9,20,721/- with the opposite parties/OPs for purchase of a truck, out of which, Rs. 1,66,962/- was the margin money and the remaining amount of Rs. 7,53,759/- was deposited through Bank draft issued by C.T. Group Financer on 30.04.2004. It is alleged that the delivery of the said truck was made on 26.05.2004, i.e. with a delay of a few days, after accepting payment, which caused loss of interest of Rs. 4,600/- to the complainant. The complainant further stated that accessories including the hydraulic jack were not given alongwith the truck, which was an act of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The price of the hydraulic jack was Rs. 4,000/-. Further, the truck had to be brought to the workshop on 30.07.2004, as there was defect in the pressure plate. The Manager of the firm demanded a sum of Rs. 6000/- for the job, saying that the amount was meant for payment of excise duty. The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question dated 20.09.2004, seeking directions to the opposite parties/OPs to pay the following:-

"A. The interest of Rs. 4,600/- on Rs. 9,20,917/- as it was unnecessarily kept by opposite party for month and made the delivery of truck with considerable delay.

B. The loss of Rs. 4,000/-, the cost of hydraulic jack.

C. The loss of Rs. 48,000/- @ Rs. 3,000/- per day as the truck was unnecessarily, knowingly and without having any authority withheld for 16 days.

D. Compensation of Rs. 20,000/- for monetary and mental loss."

The complaint was resisted by both the OPs by filing their written statements before the District Forum. The OP-1, United Trucks stated that they received the truck from the OP-2 Company on 25.05.2004 and delivered it to the complainant on the very next day i.e. 26.05.2004. After accepting money from the complainant, the truck could be delivered to him only after it was made available to them. Moreover, whatever accessories were given by the Company, had been handed over to the complainant. The OP further stated that the allegation of demanding Rs. 6,000/- from the complainant when the truck was brought to their workshop for the repairs, was wrong. In fact, the service of the truck was done on 30.07.2004, but the complainant himself did not come forward to receive the truck back.

The opposite party no. 2, the manufacturer stated in their written statement before the District Forum that there was no delay in making delivery of the truck to the complainant, as the date of delivery had been intimated to him earlier. Moreover, there was no scheme of providing hydraulic jack as one of the accessories at that time. The vehicle in question was a commercial vehicle and hence, the complainant did not come under the category of ''consumer''. The OP-2 alleged that there was mishandling, rough use, careless driving and overloading on the part of the complainant. The basic structure of the vehicle had been altered by adding more leaves to it, for the purpose of carrying excess load. The District Forum, after considering the averments of the parties, directed that hydraulic jack should be given within a period of one month of the order of the District Forum. The District Forum also held that the complainant was not entitled to get interest of Rs. 4,600/- on the amount deposited for his allegation of late delivery of the vehicle against the OPs. He was also not entitled for any compensation for withholding of truck etc. Being aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the complainant challenged the same by way of an appeal before the State Commission, which was decided vide impugned order dated 24.07.2014. On that day, there was no appearance before the State Commission by the petitioner/complainant, although a counsel was present for the respondents. The State Commission held that the appeal was being dismissed for non-prosecution on account of the absence of the complainant before them. The State Commission also held that the order passed by the District Forum was based on the evidence on record and there was no legal and factual error in the same. The appeal was, therefore, dismissed on merits as well. Being aggrieved against the said order of the State Commission, the petitioner/complainant is before this Commission by way of the present Revision Petition.

Notice of the petition was sent to the respondents, who did not appear despite service. The petition is, therefore, being decided after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner only.

There is a delay of 373 days in filing the present Revision Petition. In the application for condonation of delay, it has simply been stated that there was no wilful or deliberate delay in filing the petition. The petitioner learnt about the impugned order dated 24.07.2014 on 10.02.2016 only. However, the petitioner has not advanced any reason why he was not present before the State Commission at the time of passing the impugned order. In the memo of revision petition as well, the petitioner has not touched upon the issue of his absence before the State Commission. There is, therefore, no justification for the condonation of delay in the present revision petition. It was the duty of the petitioner/complainant to keep track of proceedings before the State Commission and take appropriate action accordingly.

The matter has been discussed in a number of judgments passed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court from time to time and a consistent view had been taken that unless there are cogent and convincing reasons for condoning the delay in filing the petition, the same should not be condoned. In this regard, reference is made to the cases decided by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) and R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, 2009 (2) Scale 108. Following the decisions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the cases quoted above, it is held that there is no justification for condoning the delay of 373 days in filing the revision petition and the petition deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone.

Even on merits, it is made out that the petitioner has made frivolous demands in his revision petition. The District Forum rightly held that there was no evidence to show that the OPs were required to deliver the vehicle immediately after accepting the money from the complainant. The vehicle was delivered on 26.05.2004, while the money was deposited on 30.04.2004. We agree with the view explained by the District Forum that the complainant was not entitled for any interest on the amount deposited for this period of 25 days. Further, regarding the allegation of the complainant that a sum of Rs. 6,000/- was demanded for repair of the vehicle by OP-1, when the vehicle was brought to them for repairs, has not been proved by any evidence on record. It is held, therefore, that the orders passed by the consumer fora below are based on logical reasons and the evidence/material on record.

From the foregoing discussion, it is held that there is no merit in this Revision Petition and the same is ordered to be dismissed, being time barred as well as on merits and the orders passed by the consumer fora below are upheld. There shall be no order as to costs.