This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners Station Master, Rajnagar Railway & Ors. against the order dated 13.01.2015 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in First Appeal No.435/2008.

2.      Brief facts of the case are that the respondent was travelling in an unreserved compartment and there was no light in the compartment, therefore, his luggage was stolen.  The complainant filed a consumer complaint bearing No.01/2007  before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Madhubani (in short ‘the District Forum’).  The complaint was contested by the opposite parties.  However, the District Forum allowed the complaint vide its order dated 05.09.2008 as under:-

“7. Considering the facts & circumstances of this case we direct the O.P’s to pay Rs.13,500/- adding an interest upon the same 12% from 8/11/2004 to the complainant within thirty days of this order.  We further order the O.P’s to pay Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) as compensation for the mental & physical harassment to the complainant and also to pay Rs.2000/- (two thousand) as litigation cost to the complainant within thirty days of this order.  If not paid within time the O.P’s will have to pay a penal interest & 15% p.a. On the entire amount will be realization.  In this way the complaint is partly allowed.”

  3.    Aggrieved, the opposite parties preferred an appeal before the State Commission.  The State Commission upheld the order of the District Forum except the rate of interest was reduced from 12% to 6% per annum and that too from the date of filing of complaint rather than the incident and the compensation awarded by the District Forum to the tune of Rs.10,000/- was reduced to only Rs.3,000/- though the cost of litigation of Rs.2,000/- was upheld.  Hence the present revision petition by the opposite parties.

4.      Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.  Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that Indian Railway does not promise any security in the general compartment as compared to the same being observed in a reserved compartment.  The passengers are supposed to take care of their own luggage.  The light is not available in the compartment when engine is detached from the bogie.  On these counts, it was stated that the order of the State Commission is bad in law and may be set aside.  Coming to the delay of 98 days in filing the present revision petition, the learned counsel stated that the grounds are mentioned in the application for condonation of delay.  The main reason for delay has been the consultation with the legal department of the petitioner as well as in taking higher order for filing the revision petition.  It was requested that the petitioner has a very strong case on merit and therefore, the application for condonation of delay may be allowed and delay condoned.  

5.      On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant stated that the State Commission has already reduced the relief granted by the District Forum and the interest has been reduced from 12% to 6% p.a.  Even the amount of compensation has been reduced from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.3000/- only.  Moreover, both the fora below have given concurrent finding and the scope under the revision petition is quite limited as this Commission cannot reassess the facts of the case at the stage of revision petition.

6.      It was further stated that it is the duty of the petitioner to provide electricity and light in every coach and if the theft occurs due to absence of electricity, the petitioner is fully responsible.

7.      The learned counsel further argued that the present revision petition has been filed with delay of 98 days and no proper reason has been given for such a huge delay in the application for condonation of delay.  Accordingly, the delay cannot be condoned. 

8.      I have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by both the learned counsel and have examined the material on record.  First of all, it is seen that both the fora below have given concurrent finding of fact that the respondent/complainant suffered loss due to theft and mental agony and harassment due to lack of light in the coach.  This Commission cannot reassess the fact against the concurrent finding of the fact by the fora below as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs. United India Insurance Company, 2011 (3) Scale 654, wherein the following has been observed:-

“Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view that what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous)  interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken, by setting aside the concurrent finding of two fora.”

9.      This revision petition has been filed with delay of 98 days and the application of condonation of delay reads as under:-

“3. That the matter was forwarded to the Law Officer, Samastipur on 27.01.2015, who advised that the permission be sought from DGM Law, for challenging the same before the National Commission.  The DGM Law passed an order on 26.03.2015.  The matter was then referred to the Law Officer for nomination of the counsel.  The counsel, namely, Geetanjali Mohan was appointed on 20.05.2015.  The file was then put up for taking a decision, authorizing a departmental official to travel to Delhi for filing a petition, on 10.07.2015.  On 17.07.2015, Geetanjali Mohan declined to file the petition and informed that she was not conducting the matters in the National Commission.  The concerned official, Naresh Chandra Jha, then contacted the present counsel, Dr. Sarbjit Sharma and travelled from Samastipur to New Delhi on 24.07.2015 and handed over all the documents to the counsel.  The counsel prepared the revision petition on 25.07.2015 and filed the same on 27.07.2015.

4.   That the time taken in filing the present revision is 180 days.  The petition was to be filed within 90 days.  The further time taken, beyond 90 days, is bona fide, as explained in the preceding para.  The delay of 90 days in filing the present petition is bona fide and is entitled to be condoned.”

10.    From the above, it is clear that the reasons for delay are only procedural in nature such as Inter-Departmental consultation and taking legal advice in the matter as well as and in obtaining higher orders.  Clearly these cannot constitute sufficient cause for condoning the delay.  Hon’ble Supreme Court in Postmaster General &Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. &Anr.  (2012) 3 SCC 563 has observed as under:- 

“29. 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 the government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few.

30.    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.  Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay”.

11.    From the above, it is clear that the Government organisations, cannot be kept at a separate footing than other litigating parties and they are not entitled to deserve any leniency in observing of the rules. Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, 2009 (2) Scale 108, has held that:-

“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”.

12.    It is clear that in the present case, no reasonable diligence has been shown by the petitioner in filing the present revision petition.  On the basis of the above authoritative judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is seen that the negligence and deliberate inaction are clearly imputable to the petitioner in filing the present revision petition.  I do not find any sufficient reason to condone the huge delay of 98 days in filing the present revision petition. 

13.    Based on the above reasons, the revision petition No.1903 of 2015 is dismissed on the ground of limitation as well as on merits.