NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/1884/2016

STATION MASTER/PARCEL OFFICE, PUNE RAILWAY STATION - Complainant(s)

Versus

AMBARISH DILIP CHANDRAYAN & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

MR. RAJESHWAR SINGH

11 Jul 2016

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
REVISION PETITION NO. 1884 OF 2016
 
(Against the Order dated 13/07/2015 in Appeal No. 241/2012 of the State Commission Maharastra)
1. STATION MASTER/PARCEL OFFICE, PUNE RAILWAY STATION
PUNE RAILWAY STATION,
PUNE-411044
MAHARASHTRA
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus 
1. AMBARISH DILIP CHANDRAYAN & ANR.
S/O. DILIP CHANDRAYAN, R/O. GITASHREE, 60, NEHRU NAGAR, KHAMLA ROAD, KHAMLA,
NAGPUR-440015
MAHARASHTRA
2. BAJAJ ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD.
THROUGH ITS BRANCH MANAGER, REGISTERED AND HEAD OFFICE AT 219-221, 3RD FLOOR, SHRI RAM TOWER, KINGSWAY, SADAR,
NAGPUR-440001
MAHARASHTRA
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN, PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER

For the Petitioner :
Mr. Rajeshwar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent :

Dated : 11 Jul 2016
ORDER

 

1.       This Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), has been filed by the Station Master/Parcel Office, Pune Railway Station, Pune, Maharashtra, Opposite Party No.3 in the Complaint under the Act, against the order dated 13.07.2015, passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Nagpur (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No. FA/12/241.  By the impugned order, the State Commission, while partly accepting the Appeal, has directed the Petitioner herein to pay to the Complainant a sum of ₹15,000/- as compensation for loss and mental/physical harassment together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the Complaint, i.e. 26.07.2011, and further sum of ₹3000/- towards costs of Complaint and Appeal.  The State Commission has affirmed the finding returned by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Nagpur (for short the District Forum) to the effect that there was deficiency on its part in permitting an unauthorized person to enter its parcel department, who booked Complainant’s motor cycle for its transportation from Pune to Nagpur but the vehicle did not reach its destination as the said person fled away with it.

2.       The Appeal had been preferred by Respondent No.1/Complainant against the order dated 10.01.2012, passed by the District Forum in Complaint Case No. CC/11/421.  By the said order, the District Forum had partly allowed the Complaint and directed the Petitioner to pay to the Complainant ₹5000/- as compensation for mental and physical harassment suffered due to deficient service rendered by it and ₹2000/- towards litigation costs. 

3.       Aggrieved with the order passed by the State Commission, enhancing the amount(s), payable to the Complainant in terms of the order passed by the District Forum towards compensation and litigation costs, the Petitioner has filed the present Revision Petition.

4.       It is pointed out by the office that the Revision Petition is barred by limitation, inasmuch as there is a delay of 218 days in filing the same.  In paragraph no. 4 of the said application, the Petitioner has furnished the following explanation:    

“4.     That it is submitted that the impugned order has been passed on 13.07.2015, on receipt of the said order by the counsel for the revisionist, who sent his opinion with certified copy of the order and the same has been received by the revisionist on 20.08.2015 and thereafter the approval was obtained by the Divisional Office and thereafter from the Head Quarter Office Mumbai.  In this process, due to their administrative exigencies, the approval for filing the revision obtained the revisionist in month of October 2015 and thereafter contacted with the lawyer at New Delhi and handed over the entire documents.  It is submitted that in the proceedings of the Ld. fora below most of the documents are in Marathi language and the counsel for the revisionist herein in Delhi send the Marathi language documents to the revisionist to get the same translated in English language and now the same is received in this process.”

 

5.       We have heard learned counsel for the Petitioner on the question of delay.    

6.       In our view, the explanation furnished by the Petitioner is wholly unsatisfactory.  Admittedly on 20.08.2015 the Petitioner received the free certified copy of the impugned order.  After receipt of the same, the Revision Petition, required to be filed within a period of 90 days from the said date, as per Regulation 14 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005, has been filed only on 17.06.2016, i.e. with an inordinate delay of 218 days, excluding the said statutory period.  The said delay is sought to be explained on the specious pleas that for doing the needful the Head Quarters of the Petitioner at Mumbai had accorded the approval in the month of October, 2015; thereafter the Advocate at Delhi was contacted and all the relevant papers were handed over to him; and since most of the documents were in Marathi language, the same were required to be translated in English language, on account of which the Revision Petition was filed belatedly.  While the Application is conspicuously silent about the dates when the Advocate was contacted; when the relevant documents were furnished to him; and how much time was spent in getting the documents in vernacular translated, the casual and indifferent approach of the Petitioner may be gauged from the fact that it took about two months in deciding the future course of action to be adopted in the matter and thereafter about five months in assigning the matter to its Counsel at Delhi and getting the documents translated from Marathi to English language.  Bearing in mind the limited statutory period available for filing the Revision Petition and since considerable time had already lapsed, the Petitioner even after taking approval from its Headquarters in October, 2015 could have acted promptly in order to ensure that the Revision Petition was filed within time.  The Petitioner, which is a government instrumentality, has not shown any sense of urgency and seriousness in processing the matter at its end.   

7.       In view of the above, it is apparent that the Petitioner has not made out any cause, much less a ‘sufficient cause’, for condonation of an inordinate delay of 218 days in filing of the present Revision Petition.   

8.       Bearing in mind the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Postmaster General and Ors. v. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr., (2012) 3 SCC 563, and having regard to quantum of compensation awarded by the State Commission, 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 in trivial matters, we are not inclined to condone an inordinate delay of 218 days in filing of the present Revision Petition.         

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

 
......................J
D.K. JAIN
PRESIDENT
......................
M. SHREESHA
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.