1.       By this Revision Petition, under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), Indian Railways and its functionaries, Opposite Parties No. 1 to 3 in the Complaint under the Act, call in question the legality and correctness of the order dated 01.03.2016, passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Chandigarh (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No. 361 of 2015.  By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the Appeal, preferred by the Petitioners herein, against the order dated 10.10.2014, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint Case No. 125 of 2014.  By the said order, while partly allowing the Complaint, preferred by the Respondent/Complainant, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, as the air-conditioner of the compartment, in which he was travelling, was out of order for almost 30 hours, the District Forum had directed the Opposite Parties to pay to the Complainant a lump-sum amount of ₹15,000/- towards compensation and litigation expenses.

2.       The Complaint came to be filed under the following circumstances:

2.1     On 28.06.2012, the Complainant and his family members, i.e. wife and two minor children, had boarded a train, namely, Jhelum Express, for travelling from Kopergaron, Maharashtra to Jalandhar Cantt, Punjab.  They had AC III Tier tickets.  Soon after, when the Complainant felt that air-conditioning system was not working properly, he lodged the complaint with the staff in the coach.  The train staff failed to set right the air-conditioning system and it completely broke down at Jhansi, Madhya Pradesh.  Since the compartment was air-tight, there was no ventilation, resulting into vomiting by some passengers.  It is averred that a written complaint in this regard was also made to the Conductor of the train, who acknowledged the same.  Besides, water was also not available in the wash rooms.  Despite repeated complaints/requests in this regard at every station, the defect in the AC system was not rectified by the staff.  As per the Complainant, the train journey of 1690 kms., which took about 30 hours in air tight compartment, proved to be a nightmare.  It was only after the passengers had alighted at Jalandhar that medical help was provided to them.  In the said background, the afore-noted Complaint came to be filed before the District Forum, wherein the Complainant had prayed for a direction to the Opposite Parties to pay to him a total compensation of ₹89,380/- on different counts as mentioned in the Complaint.

3.       Upon contest, the District Forum, as noted above, partly allowed the Complaint and issued the aforesaid direction to the Petitioners herein.

4.       Unsuccessfully carrying the matter further in their Appeal to the State Commission, the Petitioners are before us in the present Revision Petition.

5.       It is reported by the office that the Revision Petition is barred by limitation, inasmuch as there is a delay of 177 days in filing the same.  An Application, seeking condonation of the said delay, has also been filed along with the Revision Petition.  In paragraphs 5 – 6 thereof, the Petitioners have furnished the following explanation:

“5.      That the appeal was heard on 01.03.2016 and the order passed in the said appeal was prepared and sent to the Petitioners through registered post on 05.04.2016 which was received by the Petitioners office on 13.04.2016.

6.       That thus the revision was due to be filed on 12.07.2016 from the date of said communication of the order but it is being filed today on 05.01.2017, i.e. delay of about 175 days due to following reasons:

a)       After receiving the impugned order on 13.04.2016 the file was processed to different authorities for taking decision for filing revision before this Hon’ble Commission against the said order of the Hon’ble State Commission.

b)       Ultimately the competent authority decided to challenge the said order before this Hon’ble Commission by filing revision, but in place of sending the copies of entire pleadings of both parties filed before both the Hon’ble Fora below they sent only certified copy of the impugned order alongwith copy of complaint to his Panel Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Verma at Delhi on 26.05.2016 to file revision.

c)       In absence of the relevant documents for filing revision before this Hon’ble Commission the Panel Advocate Mr. Verma requested the Petitioners to send the entire documents immediately which were filed by both parties before the learned Forum for filing revision petition.

d)       However, the Petitioners requested their Panel Advocate, who had conducted the case before the Learned Forum to make them available the entire documents filed before the learned Forum.  But when no record was provided to the Petitioners by the said advocate in time they applied before the learned District Forum, Ludhiana on 06.10.2016 for providing the same, which were supplied to them on 12.10.2016 and the same were made available to Mr. Verma at Delhi on 24.11.2016.

e)       Thereafter, the memo of revision, stay application and application for condonation of delay were drafted, which were sent to the competent authority through email for approval and swearing affidavit.  After approval and affidavit on 02.01.2017 the same was provided to Mr. Verma on 04.01.2017, which is being filed today on 05.01.2017.”

6.       We have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners on the question of delay.  We are of the view that the Petitioners have failed to make out a sufficient cause for condonation of the aforesaid inordinate delay.        

7.       Admittedly, “free certified copy” of the impugned order was received by the Petitioners on 13.04.2016. Since the orders passed by the Fora below were against the Petitioners, they were required to challenge the same within the stipulated period of 90 days but the present Revision Petition has been filed only on 05.01.2017, with an inordinate delay of 177 days, over and above the said stipulated period.  The said delay is sought to be explained mainly on the ground that for taking a decision to file the Revision Petition before this Commission, the concerned file was required to be passed/cleared by different authorities and, subsequently, after taking the said decision, some time elapsed in procuring/furnishing the relevant documents and thereafter in approving the draft Revision Petition.  From a perusal of the explanation offered by the Petitioners, it is evident that after receipt of the certified copy of the impugned order on 13.04.2016, they took almost one and a half months in taking a decision to file the Revision Petition and assigning the matter to their Counsel at Delhi.  Thereafter, the Application is conspicuously silent as to the dates when the said Counsel requested the Petitioners for furnishing the relevant documents and how much time was consumed in seeking the said documents from the Counsel, who had conducted the matter before the Fora below.  Admittedly, on 12.10.2016 the Petitioners had received the said documents from the District Forum.  At that stage too, when the Revision Petition was already barred by limitation, the Petitioners took over 40 days in furnishing the same to the present Counsel, on 24.11.2016.  Thereafter, the Counsel also took over 40 days in filing the Revision Petition, after completing necessary formalities.  Evidently, even after receiving the certified copy of the impugned order on 13.04.2016, the Petitioners did not show any seriousness in processing the matter expeditiously to ensure that the Revision Petition was filed expeditiously.  Such casual and lackadaisical attitude on the part of the government functionaries has been deprecated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Post Master General and Ors. V. Living Media India Limited And Anr., (2012) 3 SCC 563.  

8.       Bearing in mind the afore-stated facts as also the quantum of compensation awarded by the lower Fora, viz. ₹15,000/- towards compensation and litigation expenses, we are of the opinion that the Petitioners have failed to make out any cause, much less a sufficient cause, for condonation of inordinate delay of 177 days in filing the Revision Petition.  We are not inclined to condone the said delay, more so when condonation of such delay would cause further harassment to the Complainant, who, along with his other family members, including two minor children, despite having AC III Tier ticket, was forced to undertake a long train journey of 30 hours in the month of June, 2012, without air-conditioning facility in a sealed compartment.

9.       Consequently, the Revision Petition is dismissed in limine on the short ground of limitation.     

10.     Before parting with the case, we are constrained to observe that instead of wasting valuable time and energy of several officers in the Railways in processing the file at different levels, as also the cost of litigation in pursuing a case involving a total sum of ₹15,000/-, the Petitioners would have done well by preserving these resources for improving the services for the passengers.