1.       This Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), by Indigo Airlines, the sole Opposite Party in the Complaint under the Act, is directed against the order dated 01.02.2018 (wrongly shown as 01.02.2017 in the impugned order), passed by the Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Hyderabad (for short “the State Commission”) in FAIA No. 40 of 2018 in/and FASR No. 4045 of 2018.  By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the Appeal as barred by limitation, inasmuch as there was a delay of almost one year in filing the same.            

2.       The Appeal had been preferred by the Petitioner Airlines against the order, dated 22.11.2016, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ranga Reddy (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint Case No. 43 of 2016.  By the said order, while partly allowing the Complaint, preferred by the Respondent/Complainant, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner in misplacing his baggage, the District Forum had directed the Petitioner to pay to the Complainant a total compensation of ₹90,000/- within a period of one month, failing which the said amount was to carry interest @ 12% p.a. for the period of default. 

3.       On 22.01.2016 the Complainant had to travel with his wife and a child from Hyderabad to Raipur by Petitioner’s Flight No. 6E-466, scheduled to depart at 5.15 p.m. from Hyderabad and arrive at 6.25 p.m. at Raipur.  Due to some problem between co-passengers and the Petitioner’s staff at Hyderabad Airport, the flight did not take off, as all the passengers, including the Complainant, who had checked in the flight at 7.30 p.m., were de-boarded.  Ultimately, at 10.15 p.m. the Complainant was checked in the flight.  Though the Complainant had checked in two baggages but at Raipur he received only one baggage.  According to the Complainant, the said missing baggage, inter alia, contained clothes, gold ring, cash etc.  On a query, the Complainant was told that he would be getting his missing baggage by next morning.  Due to the said reason, the Complainant could not go to his sister’s place at Charodha, 40 kms. away from Raipur Airport, and had to stay at a hotel.  Next day in the morning of 23.01.2016, the Complainant was informed that the said baggage would be coming by evening flight.  However, despite waiting for three days, the Complainant could not get the missing baggage.  On 29.01.2016, the Petitioner offered to compensate the Complainant by paying a total sum of ₹3,150/-, i.e. @ ₹350/- per Kg. for the weight of the missing baggage.  Since the missing strolley bag itself priced at ₹4,500/-, the Complainant declined the offer.  In the said background, the afore-noted Complaint came to be filed before the District Forum, praying for the reliefs mentioned therein.

4.       Though, upon notice, appearance on behalf of the Petitioner was entered and the Counsel engaged had filed his vakalatnama but neither the Written Version on its behalf filed nor its Counsel participated in subsequent proceedings.  In other words, the allegations levelled against it in the Complaint remained unrebutted.        

5.       Accordingly, on evaluation of the evidence adduced by the Complainant before it, the District Forum partly allowed the Complaint and issued the aforesaid directions to the Petitioner. 

6.       Aggrieved, the Petitioner carried the matter further in its Appeal to the State Commission, albeit, with a delay of 358 days.  The said delay was sought to be explained on the sole ground that the Petitioner had not received a copy of the order passed by the District Forum and had come to know about the same online, after which necessary steps were taken by them to file the Appeal, with the afore-stated delay.

7.       As noted above, the State Commission has reached at the conclusion that the Petitioner had failed to make out a sufficient cause for condonation of the said inordinate delay in filing the Appeal.  Thus, declining to condone the delay, the State Commission has dismissed the Appeal as barred by limitation.

8.       Hence, the present Revision Petition. 

9.       The short question falling for consideration in this Revision Petition is whether or not the State Commission has committed any jurisdictional error in not exercising the discretion vested in it under the First Proviso to Section 15 of the Act for condoning the delay in filing of the Appeal?      

10.     We have heard Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner on the question of delay. 

11.     Having carefully examined the explanation furnished by the Petitioner for the delay in filing the Appeal, we are of the view that the State Commission has not committed any jurisdictional error in coming to the afore-stated conclusion that no sufficient cause had been made out by the Petitioner for condonation of an inordinate delay of 358 days in filing the Appeal.              

12.     At the outset, we may note that it is not the case of the Petitioner that it was not aware of the proceedings before the District Forum.  Evidently, on issuance of notice by the District Forum, vakalatnama on its behalf had been filed.  In such a situation, the Petitioner was expected to keep a track of the said proceedings.  However, the Petitioner did not take any steps even in filing its Written Version.  Further, the plea by the Petitioner to the effect that copy of the order passed by the District Forum had not been received by it, is factually incorrect as well.  As indicated in the impugned order, a perusal of copy of the order passed by the District Forum (page 134 – 138) reveals that certified copy of the said order had been issued to the parties on 24.11.2016.  In the absence of any documentary evidence in support of the stated plea, it is clear that the same is an after-thought.  It is little intriguing that the Petitioner had also not indicated in the explanation as to what prompted its Counsel to surf online to ascertain the fate of the aforesaid proceedings before the District Forum. In our opinion, the explanation furnished by the Petitioner for condonation of the afore-stated delay in filing the Appeal does not inspire any confidence.  If it was so serious with the proceedings before the District Forum and the directions issued therein, it ought to have shown some sense of seriousness in pursuing the said proceedings and filing the Appeal before the State Commission within time.   

13.     In view of the above as also bearing in mind the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in  Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority [(2011) 14 SCC 578] to the effect that while deciding an application for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Act for filing Appeals and Revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Foras are entertained, we are in agreement with the State Commission that the Petitioner had failed to make out any cause, much less a “sufficient cause” for condonation of the afore-stated inordinate delay in filing the Appeal and, hence, the State Commission, for the reasons recorded in the impugned order, did not commit any illegality in dismissing the Appeal as barred by limitation.                      

14.     Consequently, the Revision Petition fails and is dismissed in limine accordingly.