1.   This Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), by the Complainant, is directed against a common order dated 11.12.2015, passed by the Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Patna (for short “the State Commission”) in cross Appeals No. 664 and 666 of 2007, preferred by the Complainant and the different functionaries of Punjab National Bank, the Opposite Parties in the Complaint, respectively.  By the impugned order, while modifying the order dated 06.11.2007, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Buxar (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint Case No. 114 of 2006, preferred by the Complainant, the State Commission has directed the Respondent Bank to pay to the Complainant the proceeds of two FDRs in question with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of maturity till payment, along with a compensation of ₹10,000/- and litigation costs of ₹5,000/-.  By the said order, the District Forum had partly allowed the Complaint, directing the Respondent Bank to pay to the Complainant a total sum of ₹1,74,720/-.  While doing so, the District Forum had also observed that with respect to Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) No. QYN-306459 dated 15.04.1994 the Complainant should file a regular suit in the competent Court.   

3

2.   The Complainant and his wife had a joint Fixed Deposit Account No. 4107 with the Respondent Bank.  It seems that on deposit of certain amounts, they were issued two FDRs by the Bank.  On 14.07.1995, when the Complainant had deposited the said FDRs with the Bank for renewal, the renewed FDRs were not issued to him.  Despite repeated requests to issue the renewed FDRs, the needful was not done by the Bank.  Pursuant to a communicated dated 25.08.2005 by the Complainant, the Bank vide its letter dated 01.09.2005 replied to him by stating that “we are looking into the matter and shall revert shortly”.  Even after this as well as subsequent communications between the parties, neither the FDRs deposited nor the renewed ones were returned to the Complainant.  In the said background, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent Bank on the said count, the afore-noted Complaint came to be filed before the District Forum, wherein the Complainant had prayed for payment of a total amount of ₹4,01,169/- on different heads, mentioned in the Complaint.

3.   Upon notice, the Respondent Bank contested the Complaint by filing its Written Version.    

4.   On appreciation of the material available before it, the District Forum, as noted above, partly allowed the Complaint and issued the aforesaid direction to the Respondent Bank.

5.   Aggrieved, both the parties carried the matter further in their respective Appeals to the State Commission. 

4

6.   As stated above, by the impugned order, while disposing of both the Appeals, the State Commission has directed the Respondent Bank to pay to the Complainant the proceeds of the two FDRs in question with interest @ 9% p.a. form the date of maturity till payment, along with a compensation of ₹10,000/- and litigation costs, quantified at ₹5,000/-. 

7.   Still, not satisfied with the said direction, the Complainant is before us in the present Revision Petition, praying for grant of interest @ 11% during the period 1995 to 1996 and thereafter @ 13%, compounded quarterly. 

8.   It is pointed out by the office that the Revision Petition is barred by limitation, inasmuch as there is a delay of 266 days in filing the same.  An Application, praying for condonation of delay of 373 days, has been filed along with the Revision Petition.  In paragraph – 2 thereof, the Petitioner has furnished the following short and crisp explanation:

“2.     That the appellant after the passing of the impugned order was financially exhausted and could not gather the funds for engaging a counsel who could file the required petition before this Hon’ble Commission.”

9.   In our view, the explanation furnished by the Petitioner is far from being satisfactory.  The delay of 266 days, over and above the statutory period of limitation of 90 days is sought to be explained on the specious plea that the Petitioner had no funds to engage a Counsel for filing the Revision Petition.  The said bald plea, does not inspire any confidence, in as much as, in the application, the Petitioner has not even disclosed the source and quantum of his monthly income.  It is trite that while deciding an application for condonation of delay, it must be borne in mind that if belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Foras are entertained ignoring the special period of limitation prescribed under the Act for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters, the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated (see : Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority [(2011) 14 SCC 578].

10. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the Petitioner has failed to make out any cause, much less a “sufficient cause” for condonation of the inordinate delay of 266/373 days (as per the application) in filing of the present Revision Petition.   

11. Consequently, the Revision Petition is dismissed on the short ground of limitation.