At the outset, it is observed that there is delay of 55 days in filing this revision petition by the petitioner. The petitioner has filed a miscellaneous application for condonation of this delay, which has been perused by us. The petitioner has given the following reasons for delay in filing the present petition:- “That after passing of the order by the State Commission, the applicant was told by the counsel at Jalore that limitation period for filing Revision Petition before this Hon’ble Commission is 90 days from passing of impugned appellate order therefore he planned to contact the counsel at Delhi on 25th October 2010 but unfortunately due to severe attack of Jaundice with diarrhea & vomiting the applicant was medically advised to not to move out of house and no other person is in his house who can contact counsel at Delhi therefore he remain unable to contact the counsel in time. Now after got rid of disease and taking medical advice, the applicant contacted the counsel on 14.12.2010 and without any further delay, the petition got drafted but revision petition could not have been filed in limitation period, resulting which the revision petition has became time barred by days.” As per his own admission, petitioner was not only aware of the passing of the impugned order by the State Commission but he was also conscious of the fact about 90 days period during which he was required to file the revision petition, if any. In spite of this, he planned for his meeting with his counsel on 25.10.2010 whereas the impugned order was passed on 12.08.2010, i.e., after a gap of about 2½ months from the date of the order. This meeting also could not took place because allegedly he was not keeping well. It shows the casual approach of the petitioner in dealing with a time bound matter for which he himself is responsible. The reason given by the petitioner explaining the delay of 55 days is, therefore, not satisfactory or convincing. This petition, in the circumstances, can be dismissed on this ground alone. However, we have considered the petition on merits as well. 2. The petitioner herein is the complainant in this case and respondents no. 1, 2, 3 & 4 were OPs No. 4, 3, 2 & 1 respectively before the District Forum. For the sake of convenience, the parties have been referred to as per their status in the complaint before the District Forum. 3. Briefly stated it is the case of the complainant that OP No. 1 who knew the complainant personally informed the latter that authorised office of OP No. 4 has been opened in Jalore by the name of Radhavallabh Enterprises and the OP company has appointed OP No. 2 as representative agent of Jodhpur Division. The complainant, who wanted to invest Rs.50,000/- at a place where he can get good interest and hence OP No. 1 took him to the office of OP No.2 where he was informed that OP Company was giving maximum interest and in lesser time amount will get doubled. OPs, therefore, persuaded the complainant to make fixed deposit (FD) of Rs.50,000/- on which he would get interest @12% p.a.. The complainant accordingly, at the instance of OP No. 1 & 2 gave Rs.50,000/- in cash to OP No. 2 on 14.11.2007 for making FD of one year. When he asked for Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) of the said amount, OP No. 2 said that FDR alongwith the receipt of the amount will reach him at his residence within 3 to 4 days. A form was also filled in the name of the applicant in which the petitioner / applicant appointed his wife as nominee. After 7 days, the complainant received a receipt and policy issued by OP No. 4 company which was not FD but it was in respect of Reliance Automatic Insurance Plan Regulator. The receipt which came alongwith this was regarding deposit of Rs.50,000/- by way of first instalment of the premium through a post office savings bank cheque. Since the complainant had handed over the amount in cash to OP No. 2 for being deposited as FD for one year and had not issued any cheque for taking an insurance policy, the complainant approached OP No. 1 & 2 for returning his money since the action taken by them was not according to his request and instructions. In spite of his request in writing in this respect, the complainant did not receive his amount back and hence he sent an application dated 10.02.2008 to OP No. 4 company for which he did not receive any reply. Later on, when he personally visited to office of OP No. 3, he came to know that no such amount has been deposited with the OP No. 3. Having failed to get his amount back from the OPs, the complainant knocked the doors of the consumer fora by filing a complaint with the District Forum. On appraisal of the issues and the evidence adduced by the parties, the District Forum vide its order dated 18.06.2009 accepted the complaint in terms of the following order:- “As a result, the complaint submitted by the applicant Hukmaram against the non applicant are accepted jointly and separately and this order is given that they are to return Rs.50,000/- with the interest at the rate of 12% per annum and pay Rs.15,000/- for mental harassment to applicant and Rs.3,000/- for the cost of litigation within one month from today.” 4. An appeal bearing no. 1107 / 2009 came to be filed by OPs 3 and 4 before the State Commission challenging the impugned order of the District Forum. The State Commission vide its impugned order dated 12.08.2010 dismissed the order of the District Forum against OP No. 3 & 4 while upholding the same against OPs 1 & 2. It is against this order dismissing the complaint of the complainant against OPs 3 and 4 that the present revision petition has been filed by the complainant. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the orders of the lower fora. It is seen that the State Commission has allowed the appeal of OP No. 3 & 4 by discharging them from any liability / responsibility under the award given by the District Forum in favour of the complainant on the ground that keeping in view the undisputed facts of this case, the principle of the principal being held liable for actions of his agent cannot be made applicable to the present case because the OP No. 1 & 2 were not agents of the OP Insurance Company in regard to collection of amounts against FD. This undisputed position was available before the District Forum as well and the complainant had not produced any evidence against it or in favour of the contention that OPs 1 & 2 were the agents of OPs 3 & 4 for collecting money against FD. The District Forum, therefore, erred in holding the OP Insurance Co. jointly and severally responsible in the matter. As regards the insurance policy, which came to be issued by the OP Insurance Company, it did not survive because of the alleged cheque which was dishonoured. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner / complainant and perused the orders of fora below, we are of the considered opinion that no fault or infirmity could be found with the impugned order of the State Commission modifying the order of the District Forum. OPs 1 & 2, who were instrumental in persuading the petitioner / complainant to part with his amount of Rs.50,000/- and hand over the same to OP No. 2 for FDR, which never came to be issued, continue to be liable in terms of the award given by the District Forum and upheld by the State Commission. Revision petition being devoid of substance is liable for dismissal and is dismissed at the threshold with no order as to costs. |
