JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER 1. This order shall decide two revision petitions, detailed above, which arise out of the same complaint. 2. Shri Rais Ahmed, the complainant, had filed the complaint against NCR Vehicles/opposite party No. 1 and M/s Ford India Private Limited/opposite party No. 2. The District Forum vide its order held: “6. So the respondents are directed to return car No. HR29U-7866 to the complaint by replacing the engine with new one or carrying out the necessary repairs to the satisfaction of the complainant without asking for any amount from him failing which they will be liable to pay an amount of Rs.3,99,371/- to the complainant, which was the insured value of the car in the relevant year as per insurance policy. The respondents are -3- also directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant towards litigation expenses and mental harassment. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.” 3. Both the petitoners/opposite parties filed separate appeals before the State Commission. In the appeal filed by the manufacturer/M/s Ford India Private Limited, there was delay of 257 days before the State Commission and in the appeal filed by the dealer/opposite party No. 1, there was delay of 196 days. 4. In the appeal filed by the manufacturer/M/s Ford India Private Limited, the petitioner explained the delay as per the impugned order:- “As regards the reason as mentioned in the application, totally false and vague reason has been mentioned. It has been pleaded in the application that on account of ex parte order passed by the District Forum, appellant was unaware about the decision of the complaint. It has been further averred that notice of complaint was sent by the District Forum at some other address.” -4- 5. In the appeal filed by the dealer/NCR Vehicles (P) Ltd, the petitioner explained the delay which in the order of the State Commission runs as follows: “As regards the ground taken in the first application it would transpire that totally vague and ambiguous assertion has been made. The only reason stated in the application for condonation of delay is that appellant was not aware about ex parte decision, which came to the knowledge of the appellant only during the pendency of the execution petition before the District Forum. But this plea of the appellant is not acceptable.” 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that their case is very strong on merits and they should be given liberty of being heard. 7. At the request of the petitioners, we summoned the file from the District Forum. It clearly goes to show that the both the petitioners were served. Learned counsel for NCR Vehicles (P) Ltd./opposite party No. 1 clearly admitted that the petitioners were served in this case. -5- Consequently, they were proceeded against ex parte. It is difficult to find any flaw in the orders of the District Forum or the State Commission. 8. Now, we advert to revision petition No. 47 of 2013 filed by M/s Ford India Private Limited. A.D. card clearly goes to show that Ford India Pvt. Ltd. was served at the address given in the complaint. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that this is not proper service because this building belongs to Ford India Pvt. Ltd. However, the seal appearing in the sheet is that of Ford Business Service Private Limited. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is not the manufacturer of the vehicle. 9. All these arguments are not convincing. It is very easy to ditch the law. You can have the same address where a number of offices belonging to you are working. The letter was sent at the same address, which is mentioned in the complaint. There is no difference at all. It was for the recipient to put these papers before the concerned authority. It is difficult to fathom why did they sit over the papers. Legally, the service is complete. Even if the seal is of a different company, the law cannot be ducked like this. The petitioners are aware of this fact since long more than one year and they have not taken any action against the recipient of this letter. Under the circumstances, the possibility of hanky-panky cannot be ruled out. The service stands proved. The only -6- purpose of the petitioners is to procrastinate the proceedings. The order passed by the District Forum is legal and just. 10. This view neatly dovetails with the following authorities which are reported in in Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), held that “It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Foras”. 11. Similar view was also taken in R.B. Ramlingam v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC)= I (2009) SLT 701=2009 (2) Scale 108 and Ram Lal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1221, Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. 2012 STPL(Web) 132 (SC). 12. The parties are directed to comply with the order of the District Forum within one month of the receipt of this order, failing which they will -7- be liable to pay penalty of Rs.500/- per day till its compliance jointly and severally. 13. Both the revision petitions are hereby dismissed. | 
