Haryana

StateCommission

RP/94/2019

NISHI GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

HYUNDAI MOTORS INDIA ENGINEERING PVT. - Opp.Party(s)

SHVETANSHU GOEL

10 Dec 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

  First Appeal No.94   of 2019

 Date of Institution:21.11.2019

  Date  of  Decision:10.12.2019

 

Nishi Gupta D/o Sh.Anand Parkash Gupta (Registered owner of Vehicle No.HR 16-R-4290) resident of House No.25, Railway  Road, Clock tower, Kirorimal Colony, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.

…Appellant

Versus

 

1.      Hyundai Motors India Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Kanchiguram Shri Perumbudur, Taluk Kachipuram District Tamilnadu 602117 through its MD/CEO.

2.      M/s Raghu Hyundai, Rohtak Road, Bhiwani Tehsil & Distt. Bhiwani.

…Respondents

 

CORAM:   Mr.Harnam Singh Thakur, Judicial Member.
                   Mrs. Manjula, Member.

 

Present:-    Ms.Shreya Vasishtha, Advocate counsel for the appellant.

 

                                                 ORDER

HARNAM SINGH THAKUR,  JUDICIAL MEMBER:

           

          Revision Petition is preferred against the order dated  24.06.2019 in complaint No.207 of 2016 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhiwani (In short ‘the forum) vide which  application filed by complainant u/s 340 read with Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. for taking action by way of filing criminal complaint against O.Ps. No.1 and 2 has been dismissed.

2.      The brief facts giving rise to the application are that  complainant filed application under section 340 read with Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. for taking action by way of filing criminal complaint against O.P. Nos.1 and 2. 

3.      It is alleged that while submitting the reply of O.P.No.1, Shri Sukomal Satyen son of Shri S.P.Sinha, appearing as RW-1 in the present complaint intentionally and knowingly made a false statement by filing reply on behalf of O.P. No.1 alongwith affidavit before the learned District Forum with dishonest intention by falsely stating in Para No.4 of the said reply alognwith a copy of “Satisfaction note date 08.09.2016” & Extended warranty Certificate dated 06.07.2016” as Annexure R-2 and R-3, on behalf of the complainant wherein in the column of customer forged signature of father of complainant have been marked.  O.Ps. intentionally and deliberately produced forged documents before the learned District Forum. The learned District Forum, Bhiwani has committed a grave error of law while dismissing the said application filed  by complainant-revisionist u/s 340 read with Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code vide order dated 24.06.2019 for taking immediate and strict action against the O.Ps. for giving false statement on oath.  

4.      Reply to the application filed by O.P.No.2 alleging therein that the vehicle in question was delivered by answering O.P. to Mr. Anand Parkash father of complainant, who had signed on various papers on behalf of the complainant.  O.Ps. submitted that there is no false statement or forgery of any document on their part.

5.      An application for condonation of delay has also been filed. There was a delay of 49 days in filing the revision petition.  Petitioner has filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act (in short “Act”)  for condonation of delay of 49 days wherein,  it is alleged that   father of the revisionist suffered an accident on 15.07.2019 in which he received multiple fractures and grievous injuries.  Ultimately, he was paralyzed and due to that reason she could not contact her counsel at Chandigarh. Due to the above said reasons the petitioner could not manage to collect the requisite documents for filing the petition.  In the interest of justice and the grounds mentioned in the application, the delay application may be allowed.

6.      Arguments heard. File perused.

7.      However, the contention of learned counsel for revisionist to condone delay is of no avail.  A period of 90 days has been provided for filing an revision petition against the order of the District Forum. The State Commission may entertain a revision petition after the expiry of the period of 90 days if it is satisfied that there is “Sufficient cause” for not filing the revision petition within the prescribed period. The expression of sufficient cause has not been defined in the Act and rightly so, because it would vary from facts and circumstances of each case. It is settled law that delay of each and every delay should be explained properly with some reasonable cause but in the revision petition in hand. No reasonable ground and sufficient cause has been pleaded or proved.  Thus, inordinate delay for more than 49 days, cannot be condoned as there is no justifiable reason or sufficient cause to condone the same.

8.      The petitioner submitted in the application that during submission of reply as well as evidence on behalf of O.P.No.1 Sh.Sukomal Satyen, S/o Sh.S.P.Sinha, while appearing  as RW1 with a dishonest intention placed on record a copy of the “satisfaction note dated 08.09.2016” and “extended warranty certificate dated 06.07.2016” as Annexure R-2 and R-3 respectively forming a part of the reply duly supported with an affidavit with forged signatures of the father of the petitioner in the customer column.    Sh.Sukomal Satyen knowingly made a false statement on behalf of O.P.No.1 alongwith affidavit, documents Annexure R-2 and R-3 before the learned District Forum were also forged.  The said application has been  dismissed  by the learned District Forum observing that complainant-revisionist failed to convince as to how the alleged signatures of her father on the documents have been forged by O.Ps.

9.      It is pertinent to mention here that complaint has already been disposed off by the learned District Forum vide order dated 26.06.2019 and there is no observation made by the learned District forum that signatures of  her (revisionist) father have been forged  by the O.Ps.  An appeal No. 767 of 2019 titled as “ M/s Raghu Hyundai Vs. Nishi Gupta and another has been decided on  04.12.2019 and thereafter cross appeal No. F.A. No.867 of 2019 titled as  Nishi Gupta Vs. Hyundai Motors India  Engineering and another preferred by revisionist against the final order dated 26.06.2019 passed by the learned District Forum has also been decided on 13.11.2019.  Thus both the appeals have already been disposed off by this Commission  as mentioned above.  However, there is no evidence on the record and observation that documents tendered in evidence were forged by O.Ps.

10.    In the light of above discussion, the application for condonation of delay for 49 days in filing the revision petition is dismissed. We find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. Hence, the present Revision Petition stands dismissed in limine.

11.    This revision petition has been dismissed without issuing notice to the respondents with a view to imparting substantive justice to the parties and to save the huge expenses, which may be incurred by the respondents as also in order to avoid unnecessary delay in adjudication of the matter. In this regard, reliance can be placed on a Division Bench judgement of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court rendered in Batala Machine Tools Workshop Cooperative Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur (CWP No.9563 of 2002) decided on June 27, 2002.

12.    Copy of this order be sent to the District Forum.

 

 

10th  December, 2019       Manjula                                 Harnam Singh Thakur                                                      Member                                 Judicial Member                            

 

S.K

(Pvt. Secy).