Notice was issued to the respondent by registered A.D. post on 19.03.2014. A.D. card has not been received back. Since 30 days have lapsed, respondent shall be deemed to have been served. 2. Mohd. Ali Chaudhary, Advocate has filed an authority letter issued in his favour by Dr. Ashwani Bhardwaj, Advocate for petitioners for arguing the matter. 3. Heard. 4. Respondent /Complainant herein, filed a consumer complaint against Petitioners/Opposite Parties alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioners before the District Forum. 5. District Forum vide order dated 07.05.2010, allowed the complaint and directed the petitioners to pay to the respondent a sum of Rs.18,500/- along with interest @ 8% p.a. from 29.12.2009 till the date of intimation of the complaint and Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and litigation expenses. 6. Being aggrieved, petitioners filed an appeal before the State Commission which dismissed the same and confirmed the order of the District Forum vide impugned order dated 03.02.2012. 7. Now, this revision. 8. Present revision petition was filed in August, 2012. Till date, petitioner has not filed the certified copy of the impugned order passed by the State Commission. However, petitioner has filed an application for seeking exemption from filing the certified copy of the impugned order. 9. It is well settled that no appeal or revision petition can be filed without the certified copy of the impugned order. However, there is no question for granting permanent exemption from filing of the certified copy of the impugned order. Since, petitioner has not filed the certified copy of the impugned order till date, the present revision petition is liable to be dismissed on the short ground. 10. Along with present petition, an application seeking condonation of delay has also been filed. However, in the entire application no period of delay has been mentioned. Be that as it may, as per office note, there is a delay of 96 days. The main ground on which condonation of delay has been sought is that due to office procedure, there has been occurred delay and the same be condoned. 11. The impugned order was passed on 03.02.2012 and admittedly, the certified copy of the order was received by the petitioner on 13.02.2012. Thereafter, the matter was referred for legal opinion, which was received after about 2½ months, i.e., 23.05.2012. In second week of June, 2012, the counsel was nominated and on 20.07.2012, the papers were sent to the counsel and after getting the approval, the present revision petition was filed on 17.08.2012. 12. In spite of having large working force at its command, if the Union of India do not act with due diligence and do not take speedy action for filing the revision or the appeal, then Union of India itself should be blamed. 13. Hon’ble Supreme Court in 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”. 14. Thus, we do not find any sufficient ground for condoning the delay and accordingly, the present revision petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground also. 15. Moreover, as paltry amount of Rs.24,000/- only is involved in this case hence, we are not inclined to entertain this petition, in view of the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in “Gurgaon Gramin Bank Vs. Khazani and another, IV (2012) CPJ 5 (SC), where the Court observed; “2. Number of litigations in our country is on the rise, for small and trivial matters, people and sometimes Central and State Governments and their instrumentalities Banks, nationalized or private, come to courts may be due to ego clash or to save the Officers’ skin. Judicial system is over-burdened, naturally causes delay in adjudication of disputes. Mediation centers opened in various parts of our country have, to some extent, eased the burden of the courts but we are still in the tunnel and the light is far away. On more than one occasion, this court has reminded the Central Government, State Governments and other instrumentalities as well as to the various banking institutions to take earnest efforts to resolve the disputes at their end. At times, some give and take attitude should be adopted or both will sink. Unless, serious questions of law of general importance arise for consideration or a question which affects large number of persons or the stakes are very high, Courts jurisdiction cannot be invoked for resolution of small and trivial matters. We are really disturbed by the manner in which those types of matters are being brought to courts even at the level of Supreme Court of India and this case falls in that category.” The Apex Court further held; “10. The Chief Manager stated in the affidavit that no bill was raised by the counsel for the bank for conducting the matter before the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission. We have not been told how much money has been spent by the bank officers for their to and fro journeys to the lawyers’ office, to the District Forum, State Forum, National Commission and to the Supreme Court. For a paltry amount of Rs.15000/-,even according to the affidavit, bank has already spent a total amount of Rs.12,950/- leaving aside the time spent and other miscellaneous expenses spent by the officers of the bank for to and fro expenses etc. Further, it may be noted that the District Forum had awarded Rs.3,000/- towards cost of litigation and compensation for the harassment caused to Smt. Khazani. Adding this amount, the cost goes up to Rs.15,950/-. Remember, the buffalo had died 10 years back, but the litigation is not over, fight is still on for Rs.15,000/-. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the bank, Shri Amit Grover, submitted that though the amount involved is not very high but the claim was fake and on inspection by the insurance company, no tag was found on the dead body of the buffalo and hence the insurer was not bound to make good the loss, consequently the bank had to proceed against Smt. Khazani. 12. We are of the view that issues raised before us are purely questions of facts examined by the three forums including the National Disputes Redressal Commission and we fail to see what is the important question of law to be decided by the Supreme Court. In our view, these types of litigation should be discouraged and message should also go, otherwise for all trivial and silly matters people will rush to this court. 13. Gramin Bank like the appellant should stand for the benefit of the gramins who sometimes avail of loan for buying buffaloes, to purchase agricultural implements, manure, seeds and so on. Repayment, to a large extent, depends upon the income which they get out of that. Crop failure, due to drought or natural calamities, disease to cattle or their death may cause difficulties to gramins to repay the amount. Rather than coming to their rescue, banks often drive them to litigation leading them extreme penury. Assuming that the bank is right, but once an authority like District Forum takes a view, the bank should graciously accept it rather than going in for further litigation and even to the level of Supreme Court. Driving poor gramins to various litigative forums should be strongly deprecated because they have also to spend large amounts for conducting litigation. We condemn this type of practice, unless the stake is very high or the matter affects large number of persons or affects a general policy of the Bank which has far reaching consequences. 14. We, in this case, find no error in the decisions taken by all fact finding authorities including the National
Disputes Redressal Commission. The appeal is
accordingly dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the bank to the first respondent within a period of one month. Resultantly, the Bank now has to spend altogether Rs.25,950/- for a claim of Rs.15,000/-, apart from to and fro travelling expenses of the Bank officials. Let God save the Gramins.” 16. Above quoted observations of the Apex Court, with all force are fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present revision petition is not maintainable on any ground whatsoever. Accordingly, we dismiss the present revision petition. 18. No order as to cost. 19. Dasti. |
