1. By this Revision Petition, under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), Indian Overseas Bank, Branch at Agra and its Regional Office as well as Chairman, Opposite Parties No. 1, 2 and 3 respectively in the Complaint under the Act, call in question the correctness and legality of the order dated 01.12.2010, passed by the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Lucknow (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No. 501/2002. By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the Appeal, preferred by the Petitioner Bank, for non-prosecution, as on the date when the matter was taken up, there was no representation on their behalf before it. 2. The Appeal had been preferred by the Petitioners against the order dated 02.02.2002, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Agra (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint Case No. 415 of 1997. By the said order, while returning a finding to the effect that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Branch concerned in wrongly withholding the FDRs, totaling ₹2,77,000/-, obtained by the Respondent/Complainant, the District Forum had allowed the Complaint and directed the Petitioners herein to jointly and severally return the said amount with interest accrued thereon to the Complainant, besides paying a sum of ₹4,000/- as compensation, within a period of 45 days from the date of the said order, with a default stipulation of interest @ 12% p.a. on the said amount. 3. The Complainant, a manufacturer of Diesel Engine Pump Sets and Generators, had a Cash Credit (CC) Limit of ₹25,00,000/- with Opposite Party No.1. The Complainant requested the Petitioners for increasing the said limit. However, the Petitioners refused to do so, and accordingly, by clearing their all dues, amounting to ₹26,35,958.40, on 30.10.1996, the Complainant shifted its dealing to another Bank, namely, Canara Bank. It was alleged by the Complainant that the Petitioners wrongly debited a sum of ₹21,200.50 in his CC account, on the ground that payment of travelers cheques worth ₹3,938.50, purchased on 12.10.1989, together with overdue interest, was not made. Subsequently, the Petitioners also debited a sum of ₹1,89,255/- in the account of the Complainant on the ground that the payment of dishonoured cheque, amounting to ₹45,000/-, and the overdue interest of ₹1,44,255/-, was not made by the Complainant. As per the Complainant, the said cheque was not returned to him by the Petitioner Bank. In order to recover the said amounts, the Petitioners withheld the aforesaid FDRs of the Complainant in the sum of ₹2,77,000/-. After getting a legal notice issued to the Petitioners on 03.03.1997, but with no response, the afore-noted Complaint came to be filed by the Complainant before the District Forum. The Complainant had prayed for a direction to the Petitioners to pay to him a total amount of ₹2,85,220/-, which also included the amount of FDRs, on different counts. 4. Upon notice, the Petitioners contested the Complaint by filing their Written Version. 5. On appreciation of the evidence adduced before it, the District Forum allowed the Complaint and issued the afore-noted directions to the Petitioners. 6. Aggrieved, the Petitioners unsuccessfully carried the matter further in Appeal to the State Commission, which, in the absence of any representation on behalf of the Petitioners, has dismissed the Appeal for non-prosecution. Hence, the present Revision Petition. 7. It is pointed out by the Office that the Revision Petition is barred by limitation, inasmuch as in filing the same there is a delay of 54 days, reckoned from 13.09.2013, the date when the State Commission had dismissed the Application filed by the Petitioners for recalling the impugned order. An Application, praying for condonation of the delay, has been filed along with the Revision Petition. In paragraphs 1 – 14 of the said Application, the Petitioners have furnished the following explanation, in narrative form: “1. That the Revisionist Bank filed an appeal in the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum against the order passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal forum – 1st, Agra vide appeal No. 501/2002. 2. That the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission stayed the order and kept the matter undated. 3. That the counsel for the Revisionist Bank kept on inquiring regarding the listing of the matter and every time the counsel was made assured that the proper intimation will be sent regarding listing of the matter. 4. That there was no intimation with the counsel for the Revisionist Bank for the eight years i.e. till 2010. That all of sudden on 01/12/2010 the State Commission took up the matter in absence of both the parties and dismissed the same on 01/12/2010. 5. That the Counsel for the Revisionist Bank after knowing the same moved a Restoration Application on 23/12/2010. After filing the restoration Application again the matter was kept undated with the same instruction that the proper intimation will be sent to the Bank before listing of the matter. 6. Thereafter again the matter kept pending and there was no hearing for the restoration application. The counsel was informed that the matter is kept undated and proper intimation will be sent before listing of the matter. 7. Thereafter on 13/09/2013 in absence of both the parties the restoration application was listed, same was dismissed on the same very day. That the State Commission kept the Application pending for three years and none of the parties was informed. The copy of the order dated 13/09/2013 passed by the State Commission has already been placed on record for the kind perusal of the Commission. 8. In the month of October 2014 the counsel of the Revisionist Bank inquired from the Registry and came to know that the matter is already dismissed on 13/09/2013 and applied for certified copy. 9. On 30/10/2014 the copy of the order was ready and bank was sent the copy of order by post regarding dismissal of the application. 10. On 17/11/2014 that the Revisionist Bank received the certified copy of the order dated 17/11/2014 by post from their Counsel. 11. On 25/11/2014 the Revisionist Bank sent the copy to the Regional office to sought permission to file the Revision. On 15/12/2014 the Regional office sought permission from the Head office to file the Revision. 12. On 15/01/2015 the Revisionist No. 1 got the permission to file the revision before the National Commission and after obtaining permission from the Regional Office and Head Office, on 27/01/2015 the Revisionist No.1 engaged a Lawyer to file the Revision. 13. That there is approximately delay of 93 days after knowledge of the passing of the order. The Bank came to know as to the dismissal order on 17/11/2014. 14. That as there is delay of 93 days due to the said reason. The delay caused in the application neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the aforesaid reason.” 8. We have heard learned counsel for the Petitioners on the question of delay. At the outset, it needs to be noted that the delay of 54 days as computed by the office is not correct. Even in the Application, seeking condonation of delay, the delay of 93 days in filing the same is sought to be explained. According to us, the delay is much more. As the substantive order impugned was passed by the State Commission as far back as on 01.12.2010 and on 23.12.2010, when the Petitioners had decided to file the Restoration Application before the State Commission, they had learnt about dismissal of their Appeal, the Revision Petition, challenging the said substantive order, was required to be filed on or before 23.03.2011, but it was filed only on 23.03.2015, exactly with the inordinate delay of four years. Knowing fully well that the power of Review is not vested in the State Commission, the Petitioners still filed the Review Application. The said delay is sought to be explained on the specious plea that the State Commission had suddenly taken up the matter, without any proper intimation to the Petitioners, and on 23.12.2010 they had filed the Restoration Application, which had been kept pending and was ultimately dismissed by the State Commission on 13.09.2013, of which they had received the certified copy on 17.11.2014. 9. It is trite law that the expression ‘sufficient cause’ cannot be construed liberally if negligence, inaction or lack of bonafides are attributable to the party, praying for exercise of such discretion in its favour. It is equally well settled that when a Statute provides for a particular period of limitation, it has to be applied with all its rigors, as an unlimited limitation leads to a sense of uncertainty. Bearing in mind these broad principles, we are of the opinion that the explanation furnished by the Petitioners is absolutely unsatisfactory. 10. From a perusal of the explanation furnished, we find that Counsel, representing the Petitioners, had been enquiring from the State Commission time and again when their Appeal would be listed for hearing. In such a situation, we fail to fathom any reason why he could not notice the date when the Appeal was directed to be listed, despite the fact that necessary information in this regard had also been uploaded by the State Commission on the internet. Insofar as the question whether the time consumed in filing and disposal of the Review Application should be excluded for deferring the period of limitation in challenging the substantive order dated 01.12.2010, is concerned, in our view, it cannot be excluded for the simple reason that the Petitioner Bank, having a battery of lawyers to advise them in connection with legal matters, cannot be heard to say that they were ignorant about the statutory provision and, therefore, instead of filing the Revision Petition before this Commission, chose to file the Restoration Application, which was not maintainable, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as far back as in the year 2011, in Rajeev Hitendra Pathak & Ors. Vs. Achyut Kashinath Karekar & Anr, (2011) 9 SCC 541. 11. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the Petitioners have failed to make out any sufficient cause for condonation of inordinate delay of four years in filing the present Revision Petition, which we are not inclined to condone. This view is also fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Postmaster General and Ors. V. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr., (2012) 3 SCC 563, wherein while dealing with the question of delay by the Government Departments, the Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to observe as under: “28. 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 bona fides, 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. 29. In our view, it is 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 bona fide 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.” (emphasis supplied) 12. Resultantly, the Revision Petition deserves to be dismissed on the short ground of limitation and is dismissed accordingly. |
