This revision petition by a body corporate, working as stock brokers at NSE and BSE, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1987 (for short “the Act”) is directed against order dated 21.3.2012 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Circuit Bench at Nagpur, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 30.4.2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagpur, has been dismissed in default. It is pointed out by the Registry that this revision petition is barred by limitation by 488 days. An application praying for condonation of delay of 124 days in filing the revision petition has been filed, wherein the following explanation for the said inordinate delay has been furnished: “3. That although the order was passed on 21.3.2012, the copy of the said order was made available to the counsel for the petitioner on 7.6.2012. Upon receipt of the said order, the copy of the said order was given to said Shri Pranay Naidu, who had in turn forwarded the copy to the legal department of the company. Upon getting the nod from the legal department of the company, Shri Pranay Naidu was instructed to go ahead and take necessary steps to instruct the counsel and challenge the order dated 21.3.2012. However, soon after that Shri Pranay Naidu had left the job of the petitioner company. 4. That the petitioner was under impression that Shri Pranay Naidu before leaving the job had instructed the counsel to do the needful and all the formalities were done by him. But to the utter surprise of the petitioner, Shri Pranay Naidu had failed to inform the counsel to challenge the impugned order dated 21.3.2012. Very recently on 16th of December 2013, the director of the petitioner Shri Nirmal Jain, was served with the summons, from the District Forum. Upon enquiry from the counsel, it was learnt that the proceedings have not been filed before this Honourable Commission,challenging the order dated 21.3.2012. Shri Ram Tripathi , who is looking after the operations of the petitioner at Nagpur, upon instructions from the officials of the petitioner, had instructed the counsel to take steps in the matter and to challenge the same before this Honourable Commission. 5. That upon coming to know that no steps were taken by Shri Pranay Naidu, immediately steps were taken and the counsel for the petitioner was instructed to challenge the order dated 21.3.2013. Accordingly, for preferring a revision a local counsel was engaged here at Delhi, then the revision petition was drafted and within a reasonable time revision petition has been preferred before this Forum/Commission. It is for the above said reason delay of 124 days has been caused……..” We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of condonation of delay. Learned counsel submits that the delay in preferring the revision petition is not deliberate and intentional and occurred because of inaction on the part of an employee of the petitioner company, who later on left the company without informing the management that the order in question had not been challenged. We are not impressed with the submission of the learned counsel. In the afore-extracted explanation it is not stated as to when the free copy of the order was received and when application for issue of certified copy of the order was filed as it is stated to have been received almost after three months of the date of order. The explanation furnished for inordinate delay is wholly unsatisfactory. Bearing in mind the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority – (2011) 14 SCC 578, wherein it has been observed that the entire object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes get defeated if belated appeals and revisions are entertained, we decline to condone the delay of 488 days in filing of this revision petition. It is pertinent to note that the complaint, giving rise to this petitioner, was filed sometime in the year 2009. The order directing the petitioner company to pay to the complainant, an amount of `2,31,000/- (as per the agreement/settlement) with simple interest @ 9% per annum was passed by the District Forum on 30.4.2010. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed on the ground of limitation. |
