1.      The present revision petition has been filed under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 challenging the order dated 31.07.2015 passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as “the State Commission”) in F.A.No.  1329/2013.  By the impugned order, the order dated 21.11.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Aliporre, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as “the District Forum”) in Complaint Case No.119 of 2013 has been  set aside and the complaint dismissed accordingly.

2.      The brief facts of the present case are that the complainant entered into an agreement dated 23.01.2012 for the purchase of second hand Tata Magic Car bearing No. W.B. 25D-9019 from the O.P. As per the said agreement, it was  agreed that the price of the vehicle would be Rs.1,80,000/- and an additional charge of Rs. 20,000/- for documentation. The said amounts were duly paid to the O.P. On 16.2.2012, the vehicle was handed over to the complainant, however without any documentation. The O.P. assured the complainant that all the papers would be handed over within twenty days but he failed to do so in spite of repeated requests from the complainant. The vehicle could not be used to run on road as no necessary papers were handed over to the complainant. Therefore, the complainant was forced to park the said vehicle in a rented garage by incurring Rs.1,000/- only p.m. till date. The complainant also had to make repeated visits to the office of the Transport Authority and incur extra expenses for the transfer of the said vehicle in his name.

3.      Aggrieved by the omission on the part of the O.P., the complainant approached the District Forum and the District Forum vide order dated 21.11.2013  partly allowing the complaint, ordered as follows:-

“That the case being C.C. No. 119 of 2013 be and the same is decreed in part on contest with cost of Rs.5000/- against the O.P. the O.P. is directed to refund the sum of Rs.20,000/, cost of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation totaling to Rs.75,000/- within one month from this day, failing which, the entire sum of Rs. 75,000/- shall carry an interest @ 10% p.a. from  the date of default till realisation.

The O.P. is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.1 lac towardspunitive damage for adopting unfair trade practice not only against the complainant but also against the society, out of which, a sum of Rs.25,000/- to be paid to the complainant and the balance amount of Rs.75,000/- to be deposited with the consumer welfare fund within one month from this date”.

4.      Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the O.P. preferred an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission vide order dated 31.7.2015 allowed the appeal and the complaint of complainant was dismissed accordingly.

5.      Aggrieved by the said order of the State Commission, the complainant has approached this Commission by way of the present revision petition.

6.      Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at the admission stage and perused the records.

7.      The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner/purchaser fulfilled his part of obligation in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Agreement, but the respondent/seller failed to discharge his obligations under Agreement when he did not handover the necessary documentation in respect of the vehicle to the petitioner/buyer in spite of receipt of Rs. 20,000 as additional cost for the documentation. The counsel submitted that said omission on the part of the respondent amounts to deficiency of service under the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

8.      The counsel for the petitioner additionally submitted that since the respondent failed to transfer the documents in favour of the petitioner, he was forced to keep the vehicle in the garage, incurring an additional cost of Rs. 1,000/- per month for the same. The counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner had to spend extra charges and make repeated visits to the transport authority for the transfer of the said vehicle in his name.

9.      Coming to the question of delay in filing the present appeal, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the delay has been caused neither intentionally nor deliberately. The petitioner was not financially sound to arrange for the fee amount to be paid to the lawyer to file the revision petition before this Commission. Being a senior citizen, with ailing health, living in West Bengal, the petitioner was not aware of any lawyers in Delhi. However, after arranging for the required fees and with the reference of a local lawyer of the native place, the petitioner came in contact with the present counsel. Although some of the documents were dispatched to the counsel via courier, the petitioner did not receive certified copy of impugned order despite making an application to that effect. Hence, there has been a delay of more than 300 days. It was prayed to condone the delay in filing the revision petition.

10.    I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have examined the material on record.First of all, application for condonation of delay is to be considered.  There is a delay of more than 300 days.  The order of the State Commission has been passed on 31.07.2015.  In the initial proforma for filing revision petition, the petitioner has not given any answer to different columns relating to date of receipt of the impugned order.  However, petitioner was an active party in the litigation before the State Commission, therefore, it is presumed that he must have had knowledge of the impugned order well in time.  The petitioner has submitted an application for condonation of delay wherein, the following reason has been mentioned:-

“2.   That the financial condition of the revisionist is not sound hence he could not arrange the fee amount for the lawyer to get filed the revision petition before this Hon’ble Court and secondly he is most senior citizen often remains sick living in West Bengal hence he was not known to any lawyer in Delhi.  Anyhow the revisionist arranged the fee for filing of the petition and with the reference of a local lawyer of the native place, the revisionist came in contact with the undersigned counsel for the revisionist in the first week of the June, 2016 and had a conference with the advocate.  The advocate advised the revisionist to bring all the documents of the case in order to file the petition.  Then the revisionist sent some documents through Courier but he could not receive certified copy of order despite applying for the same.  Then accordingly the petition was drafted and the revisionist came Delhi for swearing of the affidavit etc. only on 24.08.2016 and accordingly the revision petition is being filed before this Hon’ble Commission.”

11.    In the prayer clause of the application for condonation of delay, number of days has been left blank.  Definitely there is a delay of more than 300 days.

12.    It is well settled that “sufficient cause” for condoning the delay in each case is a question of fact.

13.    In Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, it has been observed;

“It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by S.5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the enquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant.”

14.    Similarly, in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kailash Devi &Ors. AIR 1994 Punjab and Haryana 45,it has been laid down that;

“There is no denying the fact that the expression sufficient cause should normally be construed liberally so as to advance substantial justice but that would be in a case where no negligence or inaction or want of bona fide is imputable to the applicant. The discretion to condone the delay is to be exercised judicially i.e. one of is not to be swayed by sympathy or benevolence.”

15.    In R.B. RamlingamVs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, 2009 (2) Scale 108, Hon’ble Supreme Court observed;

“We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition.” 

16.    Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) has laid down that;

“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.”

17.   Decision of Anshul Aggarwal (Supra) has been reiterated in Cicily KallarackalVs. Vehicle Factory, IV (2012) CPJ 1(SC) 1, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court observed;

“4. This Court in Anshul Aggarwal v. NOIDA, (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) has explained the scope of condonation of delay in a matter where the special Courts/ Tribunals have been constituted in order to provide expeditious remedies to the person aggrieved and Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is one of them. Therefore, this Court held that while dealing with the application for condonation of delay in such cases the Court must keep in mind the special period of limitation prescribed under the statute (s).

  5.    In the instant case, condoning such an inordinate delay without any sufficient cause would amount to substituting the period of limitation by this Court in place of the period prescribed by the Legislature for filing the special leave petition. Therefore, we do not see any cogent reason to condone the delay.         

6.      Hence, in the facts and circumstance of the case as explained hereinabove, we are not inclined to entertain these petitions. The same are dismissed on the ground of delay.”

18.    In the light of the aforementioned judgements, the grounds submitted for condonation of delay do not seen convincing and there has been negligence on the part of the petitioner/complainant in making efforts to file revision petition as early as possible. Thus the application for condonation of delay deserves dismissal.

19. The State Commission in its order has observed in its final conclusions as follows:-

        “Materials on records reveal that the Respondent/Complainant took delivery of second-hand vehicle after checking the vehicle by the own person of the Respondent/Complainant.  It is also revealed that all the formalities of the Motor Vehicle Department were completed and the name of the owner of the vehicle was also changed from Bharat Goenka to Ashoke Bose.  Materials on records further reveal that the formalities of insurance in the name of the Respondent/Complainant were also arranged by the Appellant/OP the Insurance Company on 17.2.2012 and Rs.12,734/- were also paid for insurance chalan for the period from 17.2.2012 to 16.2.2013 and tax was also paid in the name of Respondent/Complainant for the period from 8.10.2011 to 7.4.2012 as averred in the Memo of Appeal.”

20.    From the above observation of the State Commission, it is clearly brought out that the documentation has been completed for the purchased vehicle in favour of the petitioner.  During the arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner also confirmed that the transfer and registration has been effected in the name of the petitioner and all the documents are complete. 

21.    Based on the above discussion, I find that the revision petition is, first of all, highly barred by limitation and the application for condonation of delay (IA No.8537 of 2016) is dismissed.  On merits also, I find no illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order dated 31.07.2015 of the State Commission, which calls for any interference from this Commission.  Accordingly, Revision Petition No.2645 of 2016 is dismissed on merits as well as on the ground of limitation in limine.