This revision petition has been filed by Union of India challenging the order dated 07.03.2019 passed in appeal No. 1122 of 2014 by the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Ahmedabad (in short “the State Commission”).

2.     Brief facts of the case are that the respondent complainant purchased Indira Vikas Patra for Rs.9000/- from the post office Rajkot City on 18.01.1996 and they were to mature after 5 years and 6 months. The respondent approached the post office for encashment of these Indira Vikas Patras on 22.10.2013. The post office paid the maturity amount to the complainant on 02.01.2014. The complainant gave a legal notice on 07.01.2014 demanding interest on the maturity amount of Rs.18,000/- from 18.07.2001 to 02.01.2014. The post office did not pay the interest as the same was not payable according to rules. The complainant then filed a consumer complaint on 23.01.2014 before the District Forum Rajkot claiming the interest on the maturity amount. The complaint was resisted by the opposite party by filing the written statement. It was stated that the interest was not payable as per the Indira Vikas Patra rules. The District Forum, however, allowed the complaint and ordered payment of 10% interest per annum vide order dated 17.06.2014. The Union of India then preferred an appeal before the State Commission being FA No. 1122 of 2014. The State Commission vide its order dated 07.03.2019 allowed the appeal in part by reducing the rate of interest from 10% per annum to 6% per annum.

3.     Hence, the present revision petition.

4.     Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at the admission stage. The learned counsel has stated that there is no provision of interest in the Indira Vikas Patra scheme and rules thereunder. Indira Vikas Patras are just like cash as no name is recorded on them. The Indira Vikas Patras were presented for encashment after 13 years of their maturity and the complainant was himself responsible for this delay. The complainant has not given any reason for presenting the Indira Vikas Patra's so late for encashment. There is no allegation that the late presentation was due to any deficiency on the part of the concerned post office. In these circumstances, there is no justification for allowing interest on the maturity amount for the period of delay in presenting the same.

5.      The learned counsel further states that there is a delay of 453 days in filing the present revision petition and the delay has occurred due to time taken in obtaining higher orders and legal advice in the matter. The delay is not deliberate and may be condoned as the petitioner has a strong case on merits.

6.     We have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and examined the record. It is first seen that the present revision petition has been filed with a delay of 453 days. The application for condonation of delay mentions as under:-

“2.     On 16.05.2019 the petitioner received the certified copy of the judgment passed by the State Commission through R O Rajkot vide letter no. SB/30-VI/1/ 2014 dated 15.05.2019 and after that the legal opinion sought from the Government counsel;

3.     On 27.05.2019 after receiving the legal opinion the file sent to Branch Secretariat Mumbai along with the legal opinion of the Government counsel vide this office letter no. F@/CDRF-1/59-2014/KDR/2019 and thereafter on 21.06.2019 letter addressed to R O Rajkot for further orders vide no. F2/CDRF-1/59-2014/KDR/2019 and the case was taken up by the Regional Office Rajkot for the approval to file revision petition with higher authority for the approval and file the revision petition before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC);

4.     On 23.03.2020, the approval to file the revision petition before the NCDRC received from through R P Rajkot vide memo no. SB/30 –VI/1/2014 dated 19/20.03.2020 and thereafter the matter the case papers submitted to the litigation section, New Delhi Registered Post vide this office letter no. F2/CDRF-2/501/2014/a-1146-2014 but due to Covid 19 pandemic situation and lock down in the entire country the registered post was delivered to the Litigation Section on 02.06.2020;

5.     As the chamber/ offices of litigation section were not allowed to be open due to Covid 19 pandemic situation and after opening the chamber/office at Delhi High Court premises the matte was assigned to the present counsel for filing the present revision petition;

6.     After preparation of the revision petition the same was sent to the department at Rajkot for vetting and after receiving the signed copy the same is being filed before the Hon’ble Commission, hence, this application for condonation of delay in filing the present revision petition.”

7.     From the above application for condonation of delay, it is clear that the order was received in time by the petitioner, however, there has been an inordinate delay in getting the approval for filing the present revision petition from the regional office. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that this is an important case as a legal issue is to be decided in respect of the admissibility of interest on the maturity amount for period beyond the maturity date in the light of no such provision in the Indira Vikas Patra scheme and related rules, but no such urgency has been shown by the petitioner in filing the revision petition, if the petitioner was really aggrieved by the impugned order of the State Commission. Even if we leave the delay due to Covid-19 pandemic which only started since March 2020, it is seen that there is still a delay of about 230 days even in the pre-pandemic period. From the application for condonation of delay, it is also clear that the delay has mainly occurred due to administrative procedures which cannot be considered as sufficient cause as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Post Master and Others vs Live Media India Ltd., and Another (2012) 3 Supreme Court Cases 563 as under:

“Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the Government.

In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few.

Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay.

In view of our conclusion on Issue (a), there is no need to go into the merits of Issues (b) and (c). The question of law raised is left open to be decided in an appropriate case”.

8.     It is further seen that the special periods of limitation have been prescribed in the Consumer Protection Act 1986, its Rules as well as under the Regulations 2005 with an intention for a speedy disposal of the consumer disputes. Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken this view in the case of Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), wherein the following has been observed:-

“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”.

9.      From the above authoritative judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is clear that the administrative reasons cannot be accepted as sufficient cause for condoning huge delays. The long delay like in the present case does not deserve to be condoned in the light of a specific limitation period prescribed for filing the revision petition. The above judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court are fully applicable in the present case and negligence as well as deliberate inaction are imputable to the petitioner in filing the present revision petition. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the application for condonation of delay and the same stands dismissed.

10.   Moreover, it is further seen that the amount of maturity is only Rs.18,000/- and the dispute relates to interest on this amount. The petitioner has already contested the case at two fora below and in our view the case is not worth contesting at yet another higher forum keeping the petty amount involved in the matter and also keeping in view the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurgaon Gramin Bank vs Khazani and another, IV (2012) CPJ 5 SC wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed the following:-

Number of litigation in our country is on the rise, for small and trivial matters, people and sometimes central and State Governments and their instrumentalities Bank, nationalized or private, come to courts may be due to ego clash or to save the officers' skin. Judicial system is overburdened, naturally causes delay in adjudication of disputes. Mediation centers opened in various parts of our country have, to some extent, eased the burden of the courts but we are still in the tunnel and the light is far away. On more than one occasion this court has reminded the Central Government, State Government and other instrumentalities as well as to the various banking institutions to take earnest efforts to resolve the disputes at their end. At times, some give and take attitude should be adopted or both will sink. Unless, serious questions of law of general importance arise for consideration or a question which affects large number of persons or the stakes are very high, courts jurisdiction cannot be invoked or resolution of small and trivial matters. We are really disturbed by the manner in which those types of matters are being brought to courts even at the level of Supreme Court of India and this case falls in that category".

The Apex Court has further held;

“10. The Chief Manager stated in the affidavit that no bill was raised by the counsel for the bank for conducting the matter before the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission. We have not been told how much money has been spent by the bank officers for their to and fro journeys to the lawyers’ office, to the District Forum, State Forum, National Commission and to the Supreme Court. For a paltry amount of ₹15,000/-,even according to the affidavit, bank has already spent a total amount of ₹12,950/- leaving aside the time spent and other miscellaneous expenses spent by the officers of the bank for to and fro expenses etc. Further, it may be noted that the District Forum had awarded ₹3,000/-towards cost of litigation and compensation for the harassment caused to Smt. Khazani. Adding this amount, the cost goes up to ₹15,950/-. Remember, the buffalo had died 10 years back, but the litigation is not over, fight is still on for ₹15,000/-.

11. Learned counsel appearing for the bank, Shri Amit Grover, submitted that though the amount involved is not very high but the claim was fake and on inspection by the insurance company, no tag was found on the dead body of the buffalo and hence the insurer was not bound to make good the loss, consequently the bank had to proceed against Smt. Khazani.

12.  We are of the view that issues raised before us are purely questions of facts examined by the three forums including the National Disputes Redressal Commission and we fail to see what is the important question of law to be decided by the Supreme Court. In our view, these types of litigation should be discouraged and message should also go, otherwise for all trivial and silly matters people will rush to this court.

13.  Gramin Bank like the appellant should stand for the benefit of the gramins who sometimes avail of loan for buying buffaloes, to purchase agricultural implements, manure, seeds and so on. Repayment, to a large extent, depends upon the income which they get out of that. Crop failure, due to drought or natural calamities, disease to cattle or their death may cause difficulties to gramins to repay the amount. Rather than coming to their rescue, banks often drive them to litigation leading them extreme penury. Assuming that the bank is right, but once an authority like District Forum takes a view, the bank should graciously accept it rather than going in for further litigation and even to the level of Supreme Court. Driving poor gramins to various litigative forums should be strongly deprecated because they have also to spend large amounts for conducting litigation. We condemn this type of practice, unless the stake is very high or the matter affects large number of persons or affects a general policy of the Bank which has far reaching consequences.

14. We, in this case, find no error in the decisions taken by all fact finding authorities including the National Disputes Redressal Commission. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with cost of ₹10,000/- to be paid by the bank to the first respondent within a period of one month. Resultantly, the Bank now has to spend altogether ₹25,950/- for a claim of ₹15,000/-apart from to and fro travelling expenses of the Bank officials. Let God save the Gramins.”

11.   In the light of the above observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurgaon Gramin Bank (supra), we do not consider it appropriate to continue with the present case and to issue notice in the matter. However, the legal question involved in the matter is kept open to be decided in an appropriate case involving substantial amount. We also order that this case will not be treated as a precedent because the question of law relating to admissibility of interest on the maturity amount beyond the maturity period for Indira Vikas Patra remains open to be decided in an appropriate case. Accordingly, the revision petition No.912 of 2020 stands dismissed at the admission stage on account of being hopelessly barred by limitation, and in the light of the aforesaid observations.