Petitioner/decree-holder has filed this revision petition, against the order passed by the State Commission in execution application, with a delay of 299 days, which is over and above the period of 90 days statutorily given to file the Revision Petition. Under the Consumer Protection Act, the consumer fora are required to decide the cases in summary manner within a time frame, i.e., within 90 days from the date of filing, in case, no expert evidence is required to be taken, and, within 150 days, wherever expert evidence is required to be taken. The only reason given for condonation of delay is that due to communication gap between the petitioner and his counsel, petitioner did not come to know about the order passed by the State Commission and could not send the relevant documents for drafting the revision petition to the counsel in Delhi. We are not satisfied with the cause shown. Day-to-day delay has not been explained. Supreme Court, in a recent judgment, Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority – IV(2011)CPJ 63 (SC) has held that while deciding the application filed for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if the appeals and revisions which are highly belated are entertained. Relevant observations are as under: “It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the consumer foras.” The inordinate delay of 299 days cannot be condoned without sufficient cause being shown. Application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the Revision Petition is dismissed as barred by limitation. Even on merits, we do not find much substance in this revision petition. Petitioner/decree-holder holds a saving bank account with the respondent bank. She had directed the respondent to transfer Rs.2 lakh from her account to Current Account of M/s Queens Palace, M.G. Road, Bangalore. It appears that the respondent bank had deposited the amount in Multi Deposit Scheme instead of transferring the same in the current account of M/s Queens Palace, M.G. Road, Bangalore. On being pointed out the deficiency, the respondent bank requested the complainant to keep the amount in the Multi Deposit Scheme for another one month and thereafter the same would be returned. But the amount was not returned. Being aggrieved, petitioner filed complaint before the District Forum. Operative portion of the order of the District Forum reads as under : “The complaint is allowed directing the OP to refund Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant covered by the multi deposit credit advice dated 09.07.1998 along with interest at 11½% p.a. from 10.07.2000 till payment and the OP is also directed to pay the costs of proceedings to the complainant which we fix at Rs.10,000/-. The OP is directed to comply with this order within four weeks from the date of communication of the copy of the order.” Admittedly, the judgement-debtor bank had paid Rs.1,50,000/- during the pendency of the appeal before the State Commission on 9.1.2002. The sum of Rs.1,38,885/- was paid to the petitioner on 20.3.2009. District Forum has held that the total deposit made by the decree-holder was Rs.2 lakh on 10.7.1998 and the total maturity amount was Rs.2,50,983/-. The date of maturity was 10.7.2000. District Forum held that the respondent bank was liable to pay interest on the maturity value of Rs.2,50,983/- with effect from 10.7.2000 till payment. State Commission has reversed the order by observing thus : “But it is pertinent to note that there is no mention of maturity value of Rs.2,50,983/- in the final order passed by the District Forum is a direction to the O P to refund Rs.2,00.000/- along with interest at 11 1/1% P.a. from 10.07.2000 till payment. If that is so, the Distirct Forum is not right in calculation interest on the maturity value of Rs.2,50,983/- from 10.07.2000 till the date of filling the Execution Petition. As per the memo of calculation filed by the JDR, a sum of Rs.1,38,885/- as an amount payable to the DHR apart from the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- already paid on 26.02.2002, Since the JDR has paid this admitted amount as per the order dated 20.03.2009 and satisfied the award, this execution petition is liable to be closed.” We agree with the view taken by the State Commission. Entire decretal amount stands paid to the petitioner/complainant. No merits. Dismissed. |
