1.     The present Revision Petition is filed by the Petitioner under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”) in Appeal No. 624/2011 dated 13.02.2017.

2.     According to the Petitioner, he purchased Santro Xing Car in the year 2003 and sold the same in 2010. He wanted to purchase a new car and visited the showrooms of dealer companies. One day he met the Manager of Respondent No.2 Company, who offered him a good deal by providing 3^rd years extended warranty and loyalty/exchange bonus. On 16.05.2010, the Petitioner purchased i-10 Car bearing registration No. UP-14BB-3185. The Petitioner alleged that there were several defects in the car i.e. Humming Sounds, engine of the car was missing, sound in horn switch, rear wiper was loose, average of the car was low, some parts in steering or suspension were loose, high beam light was going to sky. On 05.10.2010, the Complainant complained about these problems to the customer care service of the company vide Complaint No. 138255223. Thereafter, the car was picked up by the representatives of Respondent No.2 and kept for 2 days. Later he was informed that all the defects in the vehicle were removed. Being not satisfied with the repairs of the vehicle, the Petitioner repeatedly made complaints regarding the defects in the vehicle, but of no avail. Thus, the present Complaint was filed by the Petitioner in which he prayed replacement by a new car, or refund of the total cost of the car, together with Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation for humiliation and harassment caused to the Complainant along with Rs. 1,00,000/- as litigation costs.

3.     Respondent No.1 contended that no cause of action has arisen within the territorial limits of the Forum and Complaint was liable to be dismissed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, as the Petitioner was a resident of Ghaziabad and the car was purchased and reported for repairs at M/s M.R. Hyundai Workshop, Ghaziabad. It was further stated that the Petitioner purchased i-10 car bearing registration No. G4LAAM363824 from M/s M.R. Hyundai, Ghaziabad on 16.05.2010. The said car was delivered to the Petitioner in perfect running condition without any technical or mechanical defect. The Petitioner is presently using the car to his entire satisfaction and has covered an extensive mileage in a short period of time.

4.     No one appeared on behalf of Respondent No.2, and he was proceeded ex-parte.

5.     The District Forum, vide order dated 13.09.2011, directed the Respondents to refund entire cost of the vehicle, and pay a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for humiliation and harassment, alongwith Rs. 3,000/- towards litigation costs. If the cost was not refunded within 30 days, the Petitioner was entitled for interest on the amount paid by him for purchase of this car @9% till the date of realization.

6.     One Member of the District Forum, however, gave a dissenting judgment on 21.11.2011, that as per settled law if a part could be replaced or a defect could be removed, then replacement cannot be ordered. Thus, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents.

7.     Thereafter, the Respondents filed Appeals before State the Commission against the Petitioner.

8      State Commission delivered common judgment while deciding the two appeals, arising from order dated 13.09.2011 passed by District Forum in Complaint No.155/2011

1. The State Commission vide order dated 13.02.2017 held as follows:

             “We have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments advanced by counsel for appellant in both the cases. We find ourselves in agreement with the pleas raised by appellant. The dissenting view appears to be in consonance with law laid down by the National Commission. We find that when the car was purchased in Ghaziabad, Delhi Forum had no jurisdiction. The cause of action arose in Ghaziabad.

             For the foregoing reasons the appeals are accepted, majority view is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.”

    

   10.  Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

   11.  There is a delay of 551 days in filing the present Revision Petition by the Complainant and no application for condonation of delay has been filed by the Petitioner.

12.  In R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, 2009 (2) Scale 108 Apex Court has observed as follows:

 “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.

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

“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.    In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are not inclined to entertain this Revision Petition. No sufficient ground has been shown for seeking condonation of delay of 551 days before this Commission.

15.    Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides for speedy redressal of consumer disputes. It follows that delay cannot be allowed to occur in a routine way and sufficient cause should be made out with specific reasons supported by material. Hence the present Revision Petition is dismissed.