1.       By this Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), Maruti Suzuki India Limited, Opposite Parties No. 4 and 5 in the Complaint under the Act, call in question the correctness and legality of the order, dated 25.04.2017, passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Kolkata (for short “the State Commission”), in First Appeal No. A/327/2016.  By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the Appeal as barred by limitation.        

2.       The Appeal had been preferred by the Petitioner herein against the order, dated 08.08.2014, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North 24 Pgs. At Barasat (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint Case No. 38 of 2014.  By the said order, while allowing the Complaint, preferred by Respondent No.1 herein, the District Forum had directed the Authorized Dealer of the Petitioner, namely Premier Car World Pvt. Ltd., Opposite Parties No. 1, 2 and 3, to replace the car purchased by the Complainant within two months from the date of the said order, and pay to the Complainant compensation of ₹2,00,000/- for causing mental harassment etc.  Further, while awarding litigation costs, quantified at ₹10,000/-, in favour of the Complainant, the District Forum had also directed the Opposite Parties to comply with the said order within the stipulated time, failing which they were required to pay punitive damages @ ₹300/- per day in the State Consumer Welfare Fund.  

3.       In the year 2013 the Complainant had purchased a Swift Car, manufactured by the Petitioner, from its Authorized Dealer. After completion of necessary formalities, the car was delivered to the Complainant.  According to the Complainant, though, in terms of Contract (OBC), dated 13.11.2012, the Dealer was required to deliver the car of 2013 make but it delivered the one which was manufactured in the year 2012, which fact came to his notice when he received the Registration Certificate in which the year of manufacture was mentioned.  Having come to know about the said fact, he approached the Opposite Parties, with a request to furnish the details as regards actual date of manufacturing of the car and the depute technical staff to show the same as engraved on the chassis of the car but without any result.  In view of revised sale certificate dated 30.07.2013 issued by the Petitioner, the Dealer vide its letter dated 21.10.2013, addressed to the RTO, stated that the car was manufactured in January, 2013.  It was averred that while issuing the revised sale certificate, the Petitioner forgot that the chassis of the car bore the date of manufacturing as December 2012 and not January 2013 and accordingly the Opposite Parties could not claim that it was a “system error”, as stated by the Dealer to the RTO in its aforesaid letter.  In this view of the matter, the Complainant got issued a letter dated 04.09.2013 to the Opposite Parties, claiming compensation of ₹6,00,000/-, which evoked no response.   In the said background, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the aforesaid counts, the afore-noted Complaint came to be filed before the District Forum, praying for the reliefs mentioned therein.

4.       Upon notice, the Opposite Parties, including the Petitioner herein, contested the Complaint by filing their respective Written Versions.   

5.       On evaluation of the evidence adduced before it, the District Forum, as noted above, allowed the Complaint and issued the aforesaid directions to the Opposite Parties.  

6.       Aggrieved, the Petitioner carried the matter further in its Appeal to the State Commission, albeit, with a delay 582 days.  For condonation of the said delay, the Petitioner/Appellant had furnished the following explanation:  

“2.      That the appellants did not receive the certified copy of impugned order dated 8/8/14 from the Ld. District Forum as is legally mandated in law.  The appellant however received a copy of impugned order with a letter dated 04/9/14 sent by the advocate of the complainant.  The letter was marked to the dealing official for further course of action.  The said dealing official reported “No order against MSIL” and filed the letter in case file.  On the basis of said report no further action was taken in CC No.38/2014 at any stage of case and appeal F.A. 1269/2014 filed by the respondent no.2 to 4 herein.  However, it was observed during the annual internal audit of the appellant company their audit for the year 2015-16 in the month of February 2016 that the impugned order need to reviewed by the appellate authority by way of appeal for limited direction as the said order hit the business policy holding the appellant as master of his dealer.  Hence the appeal is being filed now.  …”

7.       As noted above, while coming to the conclusion that no cogent ground, justifying the huge delay of 582 days, excluding the statutory period of limitation, has been spelt out by the Petitioner in the Application, the State Commission has declined to condone the delay and consequently dismissed the Appeal as barred by limitation. 

8.       Hence, the present Revision Petition.  Though the Office has reported that there is a delay of 56 days in filing the Revision Petition but going by the date of issue of free certified copy of the impugned order, i.e. 20.06.2017, we find that there is no delay in filing the same.    

9.       The short question for consideration in this Petition is whether or not the State Commission has committed any jurisdictional error in not exercising the discretion vested in it under the First Proviso to Section 15 of the Act for condoning the delay in filing of the Appeal.     

10.     We have heard Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner on the question of delay. 

11.     It is trite that when a special Statute prescribes a particular period of limitation, it has to be construed strictly and observed scrupulously. Even otherwise, an unlimited limitation leads to a sense of uncertainty.  Regard being had to these broad principles, we are of the view that the State Commission has not committed any jurisdictional error in coming to the conclusion that no sufficient cause had been made out by the Petitioner to justify the inordinate delay of 582 days in filing the Appeal.          

12.     Admittedly, the Petitioner had received a copy of the order passed by the District Forum on 04.09.2014.  The Appeal was required to be filed within 30 days, which was actually filed with a huge delay of 582 days, over and above the said stipulated period.  The said delay is sought to be explained on the specious plea that the official dealing with the matter had reported that there was “no order against MSIL”, which mistake/lapse was noticed by the Petitioner in its internal audit for the year 2015-16 in the month of February, 2016, and consequently, realizing that the said order was required to be reviewed at the Appellate Authority, the Appeal was filed with the afore-stated delay.  Being a Body Corporate the Petitioner must be having a battery of lawyers to advise it in connection with its legal affairs, and it cannot be expected that in such matters, as in the present case, the Petitioner was solely dependent only on the reports/views of the dealing official.  Besides, as noticed by the State Commission, in the absence of any documentary evidence in this regard, the stated plea does not inspire any confidence.  In any case, the fact remains that the Appeal was filed with an inordinate delay of 582 days, for which no convincing explanation was forthcoming from the Petitioner/Appellant. We are convinced that the Appeal before the State Commission was nothing but an unholy attempt by the Petitioner to protract the matter on one pretext or the other. 

13.     In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the Petitioner had failed to make out any cause, much less a ‘sufficient cause’ for condonation of inordinate delay of 582 days in filing the Appeal and, hence, the State Commission, for the reasons recorded in the impugned order, did not commit any jurisdictional error in dismissing the Appeal as barred by limitation.               

14.     Consequently, the Revision Petition fails and is dismissed in limine accordingly.