Haryana

StateCommission

RP/24/2017

LUXMI SWITCHGEARS PVT.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

AKSHAY GARG - Opp.Party(s)

HITENDER KANSAL

03 Mar 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                               

                                        Revision Petition No.24 of 2017

                                      Date of Institution:02.03.2017

                                      Date of Decision :03.03.2017

 

1.      M/s Luxmi Switchgears Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.82, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Panchkula through its Authorized Signatory/Managing Director.

2.      Sh. Dhanraj, Service Advisor, M/s Luxmi Switchgears Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.82, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Panchkula.

3.      Sh. Amrinder Singh, General Manager, M/s Luxmi Switchgears Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.82, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Panchkula.

                                                …Petitioners

 

                                      Versus

 

1.      Akshay Garg S/o Sh. Bachana Ram Garg, R/o House No.1084, Sector-8, Chandigarh.

2.      Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd., Gateway Building, Appollo Bunder, Mumbai-400001, through its Authorized Signatory.

                                          …Respondents

 

 

CORAM:   Mr. R.K. Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                   Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

 

Present:     Mr.Hitender Kansal , Advocate for the petitioners.

 

                                       O R D E R

 

R.K. BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          The Petitioners have filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (In short “Act”) to condone delay of 107 days in filing this revision. Petitioners have challenged orders dated 17.08.2016 and 13.01.2017 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula (for short ‘District Forum’). It is alleged that after passing order dated 17.08.2016, petitioners approached District Forum on 15.09.2016 for modification of order and same was decided on 13.01.2017. Copy of order dated 13.01.2017 was prepared on 16.01.2017 and same was delivered to them through post. It is further alleged that order dated 13.01.2017 was conveyed to higher authorities of petitioners for approval and due to this reason period of 107 days has lapsed. Delay is not intentional and the same may be condoned.

2.      Arguments heard. File perused.

3.      A period of 90 days has been provided for filing revision petition against the order of the District Forum under Regulation 14 of the Consumer Protection, Act, 1986. The proviso therein permits the State Commission to entertain revision petition after the expiry of the period of 90 days if it is satisfied that there is “Sufficient cause” for not filing the revision within the prescribed period.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others, AIR, 1977 Supreme Court 1221 has held that;

“Section 5 of the Limitation Act is a hard task-master and judicial interpretation has encased it within a narrow compass. A large measure of case-law has grown around S.5, its highlights being that one ought not easily to take away a right which has accrued to a party by lapse of time and that therefore a litigant who is not vigilant about his rights must explain every days delay.”

The Hon’ble National Commission in case Government of U.T. Electricity Department & Others versus Ram Lubhai, II(2006) CPJ 104 has held that:-

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 15 –Appeal –Maintainability – Limitation –Condonation of delay– Resjudicata –Appeal filed after a delay of 44 days –Plea of procedural delay in getting approval for filing appeal – Appeal filed by complainant against order of District Forum decided and copy of order dispatched to parties prior to filing of appeal by opposite party –Appeal and application for condonation of delay dismissed –Matter once finally concluded by any Court cannot be reopened by same Court.”

 

            In R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari 2009 (2) Scale 108, it has   been observed:

         “We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition.”

      In Ram Lal and Ors.  Vs.  Rewa Coalfields  Ltd., AIR  1962 Supreme Court 361, it has been observed;

“It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by S.5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the enquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant.”

         

    Hon’ble Supreme Court in  Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation reported in (2010) 5 SCC 459 held as under;

“We have considered   the respective    submissions.  The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The   legislature does not prescribe limitation with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that   they    do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek remedy without delay. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a period fixed by the legislature. To put it differently, the law of limitation prescribes a period within which legal remedy can be availed for redress of the legal injury. At the same   time, the courts are bestowed with the power to condone the delay, if sufficient cause is shown for not availing the remedy within the stipulated time.”       

 

5.      Taking into consideration all these aspects delay of 107 days in filing this Revision Petition cannot be condoned.  Hence the application is hereby dismissed.

6.      Further, it appears that this revision is an after thought version just to delay the matter. If, revisionist was not satisfied with that order then how they filed application to modify order dated 17.08.2016. It is well settled proposition of law that District Forum cannot review or modify it’s own order. If, there is any clerical or arithmetical mistake that can be corrected at any stage. So, application dated 15.09.2016 filed for modification of order dated 17.08.2016 was not maintainable.  So, revision petition is not maintainable on merits also and same is hereby dismissed.

 

March 03rd,                 Urvashi Agnihotri         R.K. Bishnoi

2017                            Member                       Judicial Member

                                   Addl. Bench                Addl. Bench