Order on delay condonation application (Paper No. 7)

1.       The delay condonation application along with affidavit has been submitted on behalf of the revisionist, alleging that on 09.12.2022 the deponent – Sh. Beer Singh and his wife Smt. Usha had obtained the certified copy of order dated 25.11.2022.  Thereafter, the deponent became ill and was on bed rest, therefore, the revisionist could not file the revision petition within time.  After getting well on 10.05.2023, the deponent approached his counsel and obtained the certified copy of the order through his counsel on 11.05.2023 and thereafter the revision petition was submitted without deliberate delay.  In such circumstances, the Commission be pleased to condone the delay in filing the revision petition.

2.       Objections (Paper Nos. 48 to 51) along with counter affidavit have been submitted on behalf of respondent, alleging that the revisionist has stated that he has obtained certified copy of order dated 25.11.2022 on 09.12.2022 and thereafter he fell ill and gone to bed rest and on 10.05.2023, he got well and thereafter he further obtained the certified copy of the order on 11.05.2023, which itself is contradictory that if he had already taken the certified copy on 09.12.2022, then why he has again taken certified copy on 11.05.2023.  It was also stated that the revisionist has also filed some medical prescriptions / pathology reports / receipts in support of his pleading, explaining the delay in filing the revision petition as Annexure Nos. 1 to 14 of the affidavit.  It was further stated that from bare perusal of the above-mentioned medical documents, it is crystal clear that the revisionist has filed the prescriptions / report which are all dated much before 25.11.2022 except one paper, i.e., Annexure No. 2, which is after the date of order dated 25.11.2022.  Annexure No. 2 issued by Saharan Nursing Home is dated 24.02.2023, wherein old blunt injury is mentioned, which is after the date of 09.12.2022, when the revisionist had received the certified copy.  Therefore, in view of the medical papers filed by the revisionist, admittedly the revisionist was not taking any medical treatment or was not on bed rest from 25.11.2022 to 24.02.2023, as such, the contents of para 2 of the affidavit filed by the revisionist are totally false and fabricated.  The revisionist has not filed any authentic document in support of delay in filing the present revision petition, hence the delay condonation application is liable to be dismissed.  It is also mentioned in the objections that as per the order-sheet dated 25.11.2022, the judgment dated 03.01.2022 passed by the District Commission was set aside and the review application filed by the respondent was allowed.  Thereafter, date of “21.12.2022” was fixed and the respondent has filed Vakalatnama of Sh. Sudhanshu Dwivedi, Advocate along with the written statement, which was received by learned counsel for the revisionist – complainant and on the next date, i.e., 30.01.2023, an affidavit of Sh. Beer Singh was filed in evidence on behalf of the revisionist – complainant and consumer complaint was fixed for 14.03.2023 for evidence of the respondent – opposite party.  On 14.03.2023, on account of incomplete Coram, the consumer complaint was fixed for 23.05.2023 for evidence of the respondent – opposite party.  Thus, it is evident that the revisionist – complainant was present before the District Commission on 30.01.2023 and the certified copy of impugned order was obtained on 09.12.2022, so the ground taken by the revisionist itself shows that he is misleading the Commission by filing false and fabricated medical reports.  Therefore, the delay condonation application is baseless and without any proper ground and is liable to be dismissed and the revisionist can not take any benefit of his own wrong, as such, the delay condonation application of the revisionist should be dismissed.

3.       The revisionist has also filed joint rejoinder affidavit (Paper Nos. 55 to 57) of Sh. Beer Singh and Smt. Usha, wherein it is averred that the revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 25.11.2022 and the revisionist obtained the certified copy on 09.12.2022 of the impugned order dated 25.11.2022 from its counsel and the instant revision petition has been filed on 26.05.2023 along with the delay condonation application.  Subsequent to obtaining of certified copy of impugned order dated 25.11.2022, the deponent No. 1 fell ill and was on continuous bed rest, while the deponent No. 2, a simple housewife, was busy taking care of her husband – deponent No. 1, hence the instant revision petition could not be filed within the prescribed period of limitation.  The deponent No. 1 is filing as per list dated 04.10.2023, original medical certificate dated 01.01.2023 as document No. 1, reflecting him to be under treatment from Chandra Nursing Home due to Enteric Fever with general weakness w.e.f. 01.01.2023 to 20.01.2023.  Document No. 2 is the Pathology Report dated 01.01.2023 of deponent No. 1 issued by Life Care Pathology Lab.  Document No. 3 is the original medical certificate dated 21.01.2023, reflecting the deponent No. 1 to be under treatment from Chandra Nursing Home due to Enteric Fever with general weakness w.e.f. 21.01.2023 to 09.02.2023, while document No. 4 is the original Pathology Report dated 21.01.2023 of deponent No. 1 issued by Life Care Pathology Lab.  Document Nos. 5 to 13 also pertain to the illness of deponent No. 1 for different periods.  Thus, all these medical papers show that deponent No. 1 remained continuous ill, while the deponent No. 2 remained busy in taking care of her husband, i.e., deponent No. 1.  Thus, the deponents were prevented due to illness in not filing the instant revision petition within period of limitation, hence the delay in filing the revision petition be condoned.

4.       The respondent has further filed objections (Paper Nos. 73 to 75) against the affidavit dated 09.01.2024 filed by the revisionist, alleging that the revisionist in his previous affidavit has stated that he has obtained the certified copy of the order dated 25.11.2022 on 09.12.2022 and thereafter he fell ill and gone to bed rest.  On 10.05.2023, he got well and thereafter he has obtained the certified copy on 11.05.2023, which itself is contradictory.  It is further contended that the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not legally maintainable because the revisionist has not filed any authentic document in support of delay.  Moreover, the certificate dated 21.05.2023 shows that he was bed ridden from 21.05.2023 to 31.05.2023, then how he has filed the revision petition on 26.05.2023.  Therefore, the contents made in para 5 of the said affidavit are totally false and fabricated and the medical documents annexed therewith have been got prepared as an afterthought.  It is also stated that there is no treatment paper annexed with the affidavit and only the certificate is annexed.  The first certificate dated 01.01.2023 shows general weakness; certificate dated 21.01.2023 shows general weakness; certificate dated 10.02.2023 shows general weakness; certificate dated 02.03.2023 shows general weakness; certificate dated 22.03.2023 shows general weakness, but certificate dated 11.04.2023 shows blunt injury lower back due to fall from staircase and the medical certificates dated 01.05.2023 and 21.05.2023 also show the same, but there is no treatment paper and medical prescription annexed with these certificates.  Moreover, Annexure No. 2 of the earlier affidavit filed on behalf of the revisionist shows one day blunt injury on right side of chest in the medical prescription dated 24.02.2023 issued by Saharan Nursing Home, Roorkee, whereas certificate dated 10.02.2023 shows general weakness and the doctor has issued the certificate for bed rest from 10.02.2023 to 01.03.2023.  So, the certificates issued by Chandra Nursing Home have been clearly got prepared as an afterthought and the same are not supported by any medical papers.  Therefore, there is no force in the delay condonation application and the same is liable to be dismissed.

5.       We have heard Sh. Deepak Ahluwalia, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as Sh. Suresh Gautam, learned counsel for respondent and perused the record.  The delay condonation application along with affidavit has been filed by the revisionist, wherein it is stated that Sh. Beer Singh, Partner of revisionist – company as well as his wife Smt. Usha, obtained the certified copy of order dated 25.11.2022 on 09.12.2022.  The order-sheet of consumer complaint No. 150 of 2021; Guru Gauraksh Construction Company Vs. PNC Infratech Limited has depicted that the consumer complaint was decided ex-parte by the District Commission vide judgment and order dated 03.01.2022.  The record has also revealed that thereafter a review application was filed by the respondent before the District Commission on 04.08.2022, which was registered as Miscellaneous Application No. 44 of 2022; PNC Infratech Limited Vs. Guru Gauraksh Construction Company.  In the said miscellaneous application, the revisionist has appeared through counsel Sh. Shree Gopal Narsan, Advocate and submitted the objections along with affidavit.  Thus, the Miscellaneous Application No. 44 of 2022 was decided by the District Commission vide order dated 25.11.2022 after hearing both the parties.  After passing of the order dated 25.11.2022, the consumer complaint No. 150 of 2021 was restored to its original number.  Thereafter, learned counsel for both the parties had appeared before the District Commission on 21.12.2022 and the respondent had filed the written statement along with affidavit as well as Vakalatnama.  Thereafter, 30.01.2023 was fixed for evidence of the revisionist – complainant.  On dated 30.01.2023, the revisionist had filed the affidavit of Sh. Beer Singh (Paper No. 16), Partner of the revisionist – company, which was kept on record and the consumer complaint was fixed for 14.03.2023 for evidence of respondent – opposite party.  Thus, from the perusal of the order-sheet of the consumer complaint, it is evident that the revisionist – complainant has not taken any immediate action for filing the present revision petition against the order dated 25.11.2022.  After filing the written statement in the consumer complaint by respondent, the revisionist also filed affidavit dated 11.01.2023 of its Partner in complainant’s evidence.  As per the record, the revisionist has already obtained the certified copy of order dated 25.11.2022, on 09.12.2022 and no appropriate steps were taken to challenge the impugned order dated 25.11.2022 by the revisionist – complainant.

6.       The revisionist has filed certain medical documents in support of the delay condonation application.  Annexure No. 1 (Paper No. 10) is of dated 19.05.2022, which is prior to impugned order dated 25.11.2022.  Annexure No. 2 (Paper No. 11) is undated, wherein one day old blunt injury right side of chest has been mentioned, which has been endorsed by the concerned medical professional on 24.02.2023.  Annexure No. 3 (Paper No. 12) is not relevant because it is a bank receipt.  Annexure No. 4 (Paper No. 13) is the prescription issued by Swami Bhumanand Hospital, Haridwar, having no date, which is also not relevant.  Annexure Nos. 5 & 6 (Paper Nos. 14 & 15) are prescriptions issued by Sanjeevan Hospital, Roorkee dated 24.05.2022 and 09.05.2022 respectively, both prior to impugned order dated 25.11.2022.  Annexure No. 7 (Paper No. 16) is dated 11.07.2022; Annexure No. 8 (Paper No. 17) is dated 10.06.2022; Annexure No. 9 (Paper       No. 18) is dated 10.06.2022; Annexure No. 10 (Paper    No. 19) is undated; Annexure No. 11 (Paper No. 20) is dated 09.03.2022; Annexure No. 12 (Paper No. 21) is dated 04.06.2020 and Annexure Nos. 13 & 14 (Paper Nos. 22 & 23) are dated 09.03.2022.  All the above-mentioned medical papers have been issued before passing of impugned order dated 25.11.2022, therefore, the same are not relevant, except one document, i.e., Annexure No. 2 (Paper No. 11), wherein one day old blunt injury has been mentioned.  The said prescription has been endorsed by the concerned medical professional on 24.02.2023.  Thus, it is evident that along with the delay condonation application, the revisionist has filed the medical documents pertaining to the period prior to passing of the impugned order and when the respondent has filed objections, thereafter the revisionist has submitted documentary evidence along with rejoinder affidavit.

7.       We have also perused the medical documents annexed with the rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the revisionist, which are Paper Nos. 59 to 71.  In medical certificate dated 01.01.2023 (Paper No. 59) issued by Chandra Nursing Home, Manglour Town, Roorkee, Sh. Beer Singh, the complainant’s partner has been shown suffering from Enteric Fever with general weakness and he was advised bed rest for 20 days’ from 01.01.2023 to 20.01.2023.  Paper No. 60 is the Pathology Report issued by Life Car Pathology Lab, Manglour Town.  Paper No. 61 is the medical certificate dated 21.01.2023 issued by Chandra Nursing Home, whereby again, Sh. Beer Singh has been advised bed rest for 20 days’ from 21.01.2023 to 09.02.2023 and the diagnosis has been shown as Enteric Fever (Relapse) with general weakness along with lab report (Paper No. 62).  In both the lab reports (Paper Nos. 60 & 62), the remark / result against Serology has been mentioned as positive.  It is very surprising that from 10.02.2023 to 01.03.2023, the same nursing home, i.e., Chandra Nursing Home has advised bed rest to Sh. Beer Singh vide medical certificate dated 10.02.2023 (Paper No. 63), but the revisionist has not filed any report showing the result by the lab as negative regarding Enteric Fever.  The diagnosis mentioned in the medical certificate is Viral Hepatitis with general weakness, as is also mentioned in medical certificate dated 02.03.2023 (Paper No. 65) issued for the period from 02.03.2023 to 21.03.2023 as well as medical certificate dated 22.03.2023 (Paper No. 67) pertaining to the period from 22.03.2023 to 10.04.2023.  Thereafter, Sh. Beer Singh has been shown to be diagnosed with acute lumbago (blunt injury lower back due to fall from staircase) and has been advised bed rest from 11.04.2023 to 30.04.2023 and further from 01.05.2023 to 20.05.2023.  The revisionist has not filed the affidavit of the concerned doctor as well as lab along with the rejoinder affidavit, so as to prove the factum that the doctor has actually treated the deponent – Sh. Beer Singh in regard to the diagnosis mentioned in the medical certificates and what medicines were prescribed to the deponent during the alleged period of illness.  Thus, the above documents (Paper Nos. 59 to 71) filed on behalf of the revisionist can not be relied upon, as they seem to be not genuine because those medical papers were not enclosed with the delay condonation application.  Apart from it, in medical paper (Annexure No. 2, Paper No. 11) one day old blunt injury is mentioned, but in the medical certificate dated 10.02.2023 (Paper No. 63), the same fact (of old blunt injury) is not mentioned.

8.       For the reasons aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that the revisionist has not been able to satisfactorily explain an inordinate delay in filing the revision petition and there is no plausible explanation put forward by the revisionist for making a case in its favour, so as to allow the delay condonation application and condone the delay in filing the revision petition.  Consequently, the application for condonation of delay warrants dismissal.

9.       Application for condonation of delay is dismissed.  As a consequence thereof, the revision petition is dismissed as not maintainable, being barred by limitation.  No order as to costs.

10.     A copy of this Order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 / 2019.  The Order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.   

11.     File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Order.