JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

1.      Complainant in Revision Petition No.3450 of 2014 purchased 14 kg. of hybrid dhan seeds for a consideration of Rs.1318.10/- from a cooperative society, on the directions of the Agriculture Department, for sowing those seeds in his agricultural land. According to the complainant he was told by the seller as well as by the Deputy Director of the Agriculture Department that 6 kg. per acre seeds should be planted and the productivity could be 60 quintals per acre. According to the complainant he cultivated the land through tractor, planted the seeds and used the requisite fertilizers and insecticides. Despite that, only 25% of the plants grew and the remaining plants got damaged. The complainant claimed damages to the extent of Rs.40,000/- per acre, besides other expenses incurred by him, thereby making a total compensation of Rs.1,25,000/-. The District Forum vide its order dated 23-11-2012 allowed the complaint.

2.      Being aggrieved from the order of the District Forum the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The State Commission partly modified the order of the District Forum and subject to the said modification the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed. Being aggrieved from dismissal of its appeal the petitioner is before this Commission by way of this revision petition. Since there is a delay of 133 days in filing the revision petition, I.A.No.6065 of 2014 has been filed seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision petition.

3.      The complainant in revision petition No.3451 of 2014 claims to have purchased hybrid dhan seeds on the advice of opposite parties Nos.2 to 6 in the complaint and he also claimed that he was assured productivity to the extent of 35 to 40 quintals per hectare. He purchased 72 kg. dhan seeds at the cost of Rs.95/- per kg.. He also claimed to have sown those seeds in his fields and irrigated the said fields from time to time. According to him, on harvesting, he found that total hybrid grown in 20 acre field was 60 quintals to 65 quintals per acre. According to him he suffered loss to the extent of 360 quintals values of which comes to Rs.3,96,000/-. He also claimed Rs.1,00,000/- towards expenditure incurred by him on fertilizers, cultivation, irrigation and harvesting, etc..

4.      The complaint filed by the complainant in Revision Petition No.3451 of 2014 was also allowed by the concerned District Forum. Being aggrieved from the order of the District Forum the petitioner preferred an appeal before the concerned State Commission. In his case also the order passed by the District Forum was partly allowed and the appeal was dismissed subject to the said modification. Being aggrieved from the order of the State Commission, the petitioner is before this Commission by way of this revision petition. Since there is a delay of 133 days in filing the revision petition, I.A. No.6068 of 2014 has been filed seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision petition.

5.      I have carefully examined the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision petition. It is an admitted case of the petitioner that the impugned order dated 23-01-2014 was prepared and received by them on 25-01-2014. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that they received instructions for filing the revision petition only on 16-06-2014. Thus, the petitioner-corporation took more than four months and three weeks to take a decision to challenge the order passed by the State Commission and sent the file to its counsel. The learned counsel further submits that some of the documents sent to them were in Hindi and, therefore, required translation. He also submits that all the requisite documents were not sent to them along with instructions to file the revision petition.

6.      The application does not explain why it took more than four months and three weeks to the petitioner-corporation to examine the impugned order and take a decision to challenge it by way of a revision petition. Since the copy of the impugned order had been received by the petitioner-corporation on 25-01-2014, it ought to have examined the matter expeditiously, particularly considering that it had lost before the District Forum as well as the State Commission. The application under consideration does not give day to day explanation for the delay between 25-01-2014 and 16-06-2014. It does not disclose that to whom the file travelled during the aforesaid period and who took how much time to clear the file. It is stated in para 4 of the application that the head office of the petitioner-corporation had taken legal advice from its legal department at New Delhi, but the application does not disclose on which date the head office situated at Delhi sought the opinion of the legal department which incidentally is also situated at Delhi. It could not have taken much time for the corporation to obtain an internal legal opinion in the matter.

7.      The petitioner-corporation ought to have sent all the requisite documents to the counsel along with instructions to file the revision petition. This was more so when it had already taken more than four months in sending the said instructions to its counsel. As far as the English translation of the documents is concerned, the petitioner could always have some time from this Commission to file the same. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that they required English translation to understand the documents from their point of view. The contention, however, is not convincing since the documents were in Hindi which is the language primarily written and spoken in Delhi. In any case, as noted earlier, there is no detailed explanation for the abnormal delay which has taken place in filing this revision petition.

8.      In my opinion once the copy of the impugned order have been received by the petitioner on 25-01-2014, the file should have moved swiftly and appropriate decision in consultation with the law department of the petitioner corporation could easily have been taken within three-four weeks. The petitioner-corporation certainly did not require more than four months to take a decision in a matter of this nature where the stake for the corporation cannot be said to be high.

9.      One of the objectives behind enactment of Consumer Protection Act is to grant expeditious relief to the consumer and that is why the act enjoins upon the consumer forum to decide the complaint, as far as is possible within the period of three months. The aforesaid objective, in our opinion, cannot be achieved, if we condone the delay as a matter of course, without a satisfactory explanation for the delay having been given.        
10.    For the reasons stated hereinabove, I do not find adequate explanation for the abnormal delay of 133 days in filing the revision petition. The applications seeking condonation of delay are accordingly dismissed. Since the applications seeking condondation of delay have been dismissed, the revision petitions are dismissed as barred by limitation.