REKHA GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER

                The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 01.03.2016 of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal no. 360 of 2015.

2.     The facts of the case as per the petitioner/ opposite party are that the respondent/ complainant along with his wife and two minor children boarded the train no. 11077, Jhelum Express. They were allotted seat nos. 29, 30, 39 and 40 in B 4 Coach of III AC. The said train started at 09.50 AM and after some time, the respondents felt that that AC system was not properly working and the matter was reported to the concerned staff and the concerned conductor verbally, who in turn, stated that they were setting the temperature thermostat for proper cooling. However, the staff failed to put the AC system in order and at Jhansi (MP) the same completely broke down. The compartment was air tight and on account of non-functioning of the AC, there was uneasiness and suffocation due to lack of ventilation. This resulted in passengers suffering from vomiting. A complaint was lodged with Mr T K Bhatnagar, Conductor who was on duty who received and acknowledged the same. Further, there was no water in the washroom and the 3^rd AC was worse than a general coach due to the mal-functioning of the AC system. At each and every station, whereever the train halted the passengers were assured by the conductor, TTE and other staff that they were trying to set the AC system in order but ultimately, they showed their inability and helplessness to set the same in order. The railway authorities assured that the same would be set in order at New Delhi Railway Station, but the same was not done at Delhi also. No alternative arrangements were also made to shift the passengers to other coach.  The respondents travelled the journey of 30 hours in an air tight closed railway apartment, which was like a hell, especially in the hot humidity of rainy days. Further, there was no medical help in the train and he was unable to provide medical aid to his children who were suffering from vomiting. Medical aid was provided only when the train halted at Jalandhar. Despite the complaint made by the respondent no action was taken by the officials of the petitioners. These acts of omissions on the part amount of the railway authority to gross negligence and deficiency in service. Hence, the respondent is entitled to be refund the train fare of Rs.80,000/- and Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.

3.     The petitioners/ opposite parties in their reply before the District Forum they did not dispute that the respondent along with his family members boarded the train. The petitioners have denied the other allegations made in the complaint and averred that the AC was working and the cooling was proper which was as per the requirement of all the passengers. In these circumstances, there was no question of making any complaint by the respondent nor was such a complaint made. Therefore, there was no question of any inconvenience, mental pain or agony to the respondent or his family members. There was no deficiency in service on their part nor did they indulge in unfair trade practice. The respondent has no cause of action to file this complaint and the same is not maintainable.  Further, the respondents have suppressed the material facts and have not come to the District Forum with clean hands. The same is bad for non-joinder of petitioner no. 3/OP no. 3 who has no concern with the alleged grievance made in the complaint. Hence, the petitioners have prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs, being false and abuse of the process of law and having been filed to extort money in the form of compensation.

4.     The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar (‘the District Forum’) vide its order dated 11^th November 2014 allowed the complaint and directed as under:

“The complaint is accepted and OP Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to pay Rs.15,000/- in lump sum to the complainant on account of compensation and litigation expenses”.

5.     Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the petitioners filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission dismissed the appeal in limine.

7.     The Revision Petition has been filed with a delay of 173 days and 177 days as per the report of the Registry.  An application, seeking condonation of the said delay, has also been filed along with the Revision Petition.  In paragraphs 5 – 7 thereof, the Petitioners have furnished the following explanation:

“5.      That the appeal was heard on 01.03.2016 and the order passed in the said appeal was prepared and sent to the Petitioners through registered post on 05.04.2016 which was received by the Petitioners office on 13.04.2016.

 6.       That thus the revision was due to be filed on 12.07.2016 from the date of said communication of the order but it is being filed today on 05.01.2017, i.e. delay of about 175 days due to following reasons:

a)       After receiving the impugned order on 13.04.2016 the file was processed to different authorities for taking decision for filing revision before this Hon’ble Commission against the said order of the Hon’ble State Commission.

b)       Ultimately the competent authority decided to challenge the said order before this Hon’ble Commission by filing revision, but in place of sending the copies of entire pleadings of both parties filed before both the Hon’ble Fora below they sent only certified copy of the impugned order along with copy of complaint to his Panel Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Verma at Delhi on 26.05.2016 to file revision.

 c)       In absence of the relevant documents for filing revision before this Hon’ble Commission the Panel Advocate Mr Verma requested the Petitioners to send the entire documents immediately which were filed by both parties before the learned Forum for filing revision petition.

 d)       However, the Petitioners requested their Panel Advocate, who had conducted the case before the Learned Forum to make them available the entire documents filed before the learned Forum.  But when no record was provided to the Petitioners by the said advocate in time they applied before the learned District Forum, Ludhiana on 06.10.2016 for providing the same, which were supplied to them on 12.10.2016 and the same were made available to Mr. Verma at Delhi on 24.11.2016.

 e)       Thereafter, the memo of revision, stay application and application for condonation of delay were drafted, which were sent to the competent authority through email for approval and swearing affidavit.  After approval and affidavit on 02.01.2017 the same was provided to Mr. Verma on 04.01.2017, which is being filed today on 05.01.2017.

7.     From the aforesaid facts it is evident that due to the procedural delay at different levels from one office to another in taking decision for filing revision by the competent authority of the petitioners and also due to non-supply of the certified copies of the entire documents for long time by the learned Forum the present revision could not be filed in time.”

8.       I have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner on the question of delay.  I am of the view that the Petitioners have failed to make out a sufficient cause for condonation of the aforesaid inordinate delay.        

9.     Admittedly, “free certified copy” of the impugned order was received by the Petitioners on 13.04.2016. Since the orders passed by the Fora below were against the Petitioners, they were required to challenge the same within the stipulated period of 90 days but the present Revision Petition has been filed only on 05.01.2017, with an inordinate delay of 177 days, over and above the said stipulated period.  The said delay is sought to be explained mainly on the ground that for taking a decision to file the Revision Petition before this Commission, the concerned file was required to be passed/cleared by different authorities and, subsequently, after taking the said decision, some time elapsed in procuring/furnishing the relevant documents and thereafter in approving the draft Revision Petition.  From a perusal of the explanation offered by the Petitioners, it is evident that after receipt of the certified copy of the impugned order on 13.04.2016, they took almost one and a half months in taking a decision to file the Revision Petition and assigning the matter to their Counsel at Delhi.  Thereafter, the Application is conspicuously silent as to the dates when the said Counsel requested the Petitioners for furnishing the relevant documents and how much time was consumed in seeking the said documents from the Counsel, who had conducted the matter before the Fora below.  Admittedly, on 12.10.2016 the Petitioners had received the said documents from the District Forum.  At that stage too, when the Revision Petition was already barred by limitation, the Petitioners took over 40 days in furnishing the same to the present Counsel, on 24.11.2016.  Thereafter, the Counsel also took over 40 days in filing the Revision Petition, after completing necessary formalities.  Evidently, even after receiving the certified copy of the impugned order on 13.04.2016, the Petitioners did not show any seriousness in processing the matter expeditiously to ensure that the Revision Petition was filed expeditiously.  Such casual and lackadaisical attitude on the part of the government functionaries has been deprecated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Post Master General and Ors. V. Living Media India Limited And Anr., (2012) 3 SCC 563.  

 10.      Bearing in mind the afore-stated facts as also the quantum of compensation awarded by the lower Fora, viz. ₹15,000/- towards compensation and litigation expenses, I am of the opinion that the Petitioners have failed to make out any cause, much less a sufficient cause, for condonation of inordinate delay of 177 days in filing the Revision Petition.  I am not inclined to condone the said delay, more so when condonation of such delay would cause further harassment to the Complainant, who, along with his other family members, including two minor children, despite having AC III Tier ticket, was forced to undertake a long train journey of 30 hours in the month of June, 2012, without air-conditioning facility in a sealed compartment.

11.    Consequently, the Revision Petition is dismissed in limine on the short ground of limitation.