JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) The complainant, who was to travel from Jhansi to Delhi, deposited one suitcase and one carry bag in the luggage room of Jhansi on 08.12.2001, for which a receipt was duly issued to him after collecting the requisite fee. When he later went to the luggage room to collect his luggage, he was told that the concerned employee being on leave, the luggage would be returned to him later. When he again went to collect the luggage at Jhansi Railway Station, he was told that the luggage had been lost. When a complaint was lodged in this regard, a delivery certificate was also issued to him. However, neither the goods were returned nor was its price paid to the complainant. He, therefore, approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint, seeking a sum of Rs. 57,785/- alongwith interest on that amount, Rs. 20,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- towards cost of litigation. In its reply, the petitioner admitted that the complainant had deposited two items in the cloak room of Jhansi Railway Station, for which a receipt was also issued to him. It was also admitted that the complainant had submitted an application, alleging loss of his goods. It was claimed that the Railway Administration is not responsible for the valuable kept in the cloak room. The petitioner also disputed the valuation given by the complainant to the lost article. 2. The District Forum, vide its order dated 25.07.2006, directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 20,153/- to the complainant alongwith interest on that amount at the rate of 8% per annum. The petitioner was also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 500/- towards cost of litigation. Being aggrieved from the order of the District Forum, the petitioner approached the State Commission, by way of an appeal. The said appeal, however, came to be dismissed on 06.07.2007 on the ground that the petitioner had not taken steps in terms of the interim order of the State Commission dated 01.03.2007, which required the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000/- within one month as a condition for staying the order of the District Forum. 3. Being aggrieved from dismissal of its appeal, the petitioner is before this Commission by way of this revision petition. Since, there is a delay of as much as 2483 days i.e. 6 year, 09 months and 18 days in filing the revision petition, I.A. No. 4934/2014 has been filed, seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision petition. It is stated in the application, seeking condonation of delay, that the appeal was dismissed without prior intimation to the petitioner or its counsel. 4. A perusal of the documents filed by the petitioner would show that on the first date of hearing, the appeal was adjourned to 06.12.2007. However, the appeal came to be dismissed much earlier on 06.07.2007, on account of failure of the petitioner to comply with the order requiring deposit of Rs. 10,000/- as a pre-condition for staying the order of the District Forum. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the letter dated 19.06.2007, which the petitioner received from the State Commission on 09.07.2007, requiring it to take steps in the appeal within a period of one week. She submits that on receipt of the aforesaid letter, an employee Mr. Sudhir Kumar Raijada was deputed to take necessary steps, but since he fell sick, Mr. Raijada could not travel to Lucknow to contact the counsel for the petitioner namely Mr. Anil Srivastava. She has also drawn our attention to the letter of Mr. Srivastava dated 22.07.2007, informing that they had taken steps in the matter, but the appeal had not been listed before the State Commission. The learned counsel has taken us through several letters written by the petitioner and response sent by Mr. Anil Srivastava, Advocate to some of those letters. 6. Assuming that Mr. Srivastava, Advocate, despite being based in Lucknow was not aware of the appeal being listed and getting dismissed on 06.07.2007, he was expected to appear before the State Commission on 06.12.2007, which was the date fixed by the State Commission in his presence. The application filed by the petitioner is conspicuously silent as to whether Mr. Srivastava had appeared before the State Commission on 06.12.2007 or not. Had Mr. Srivastava appeared before the State Commission on that date, he would have found that appeal in question had not been listed for the hearing, which, in turn, would have prompted him to contact the Registry of the Commission to find out the fate of his appeal and on such inquiry, he would have come to know that the appeal had already been dismissed on 06.07.2007. The letter of Mr. Srivastava dated 17.07.2008, stating therein that there was no next date in the appeal in question is a clear indicator that he did not appear before the State Commission either on 06.12.2007 or at any time between 06.12.2007 and 17.07.2008, when the aforesaid letter was written by him. A perusal of the endorsement made by an employee of the petitioner, vide letter dated 08.10.2010. which is available at page no. 63 of the paper book, would show that on 31.10.2010, one Mr. Bharat contacted the junior of Mr. Srivastava and was informed that the next date of hearing in the matter was 01.11.2010. This obviously was an incorrect information, since the appeal has already been dismissed on 06.07.2007. Vide letter dated 19.08.2007, Mr. Srivastava informed the petitioner that the previous date in the aforesaid appeal was 12.07.2011 and there was no next date in the matter. Obviously, this also was an incorrect information, since the appeal was never listed on 12.07.2011 and had already been dismissed more than four years ago. The letter of Mr. Srivastava dated 05.04.2012 also shows that he informed the petitioner that the previous date of hearing in the appeal was 23.12.2011, but there was no next date of hearing in the matter. It appears that thereafter, there was no communication from Mr. Srivastava to the petitioner, before a letter dated 09.01.2013 was written by him, informing that he had not been able to inspect the concerned filed. Vide letter dated 08.02.2013, Mr. Srivastava wrote to the Divisional Railway Manager that he had already informed them that appeal in question has been dismissed for non-prosecution. Thus, it is evident that atleast by 08.02.2013, the petitioner had become aware that the appeal in question had been dismissed for non-prosecution. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that Mr. Srivastava had filed an application, seeking the restoration of appeal before writing the letter dated 08.02.2013 and that application was eventually dismissed by the State Commission on 20.09.2013. It would thus be seen that the learned counsel engaged by the petitioner was grossly negligent in performance of his professional obligations. Not only that, the learned counsel went to the extent of giving false information to the petitioner with respect to the listing of the appeal, which had been filed before the State Commission. The said appeal had been dismissed on 06.07.2007 and the learned counsel could easily have come to know of this, had he inspected the record of the State Commission on 06.12.2007, which was the date given by the State Commission in his presence. Despite that, no complaint has been made by the petitioner to the concerned Bar Council against Mr. Srivastava, Advocate, his name is stated to have been removed from the panel of Railways. 8. Another negligence, we find in this case is that the officials of the Railways had not been monitoring the appeal filed by the State Commission and were not in regular touch with the Advocate. In our opinion, the Railway Officers could not have left everything to the lawyers after filing the appeal and they were expected to remain in regular touch with him. Had they coordinated with the Advocate and remained in contact with him, they would have come to know that the State Commission has fixed 06.12.2007, as the next date of hearing in the appeal. Had that been done, they would have asked to the Advocate soon after 06.12.2007 as to what order had been passed by the State Commission on that date. However, for years together, the officials of the Railways did not bother to visit the office of the Advocate or the State Commission to inquire about the fate of their appeal. We fail to appreciate how, the officials of the Railways could have accepted, the information given by Mr. Srivastava, Advocate that no date of hearing had been fixed by the State Commission in the appeal filed on their behalf. They ought to have crosschecked by visiting the Registry of the State Commission. In fact, had they been in touch with the Advocate, they could have inquired from him even on telephone as to what had happened to the appeal and why not date of hearing had been fixed by the State Commission. We have no doubt in our mind that had they done so, the Advocate would have informed them that in fact the last date of hearing known to him was 06.12.2007. Had such interaction taken place, the officials of the Railways could have asked the Advocate as to why he had not appeared on 06.12.2007 and would have requested him to visit the Registry of the Commission and find out the fate of their appeal. 9. We also notice that though the Railways had come to know prior to February, 2013, when the appeal had been dismissed in default, this revision petition came to be filed only on 22.07.2014. They were not justified in applying to the State Commission for restoration of the complaint since it is settled legal proposition that the State Commission could not have restored the appeal which had dismissed on 06.07.2007. 10. The consumer Forum is expected to render its decision on a complaint, within a period of 3 months. The objective behind this provision is to tender prompt relief to the consumer. It would be a perversity of justice, if the delay of 7 years in filing an appeal is condoned in a matter of this nature. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances discussed above and also taking note of the fact that the amount involved in this case was a petty sum of about Rs. 20,000/-, we find no justification in condoning the abnormal delay of about 7 years in filing this revision petition. The application, seeking condonation of delay is, therefore, dismissed. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed as barred by limitation. |
