25-08-2015 - The reasons for delay in disposal of this appeal can be seen from the order sheet.

1. On 07.08.2015 the following order was passed by this Commission:-

“As per the order dated 29.6.2015 passed by Hon’ble National Commission in R.P. No. 1375/2013, Sri Lal Babu Mahto appears in person and on behalf of Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Vakalatnama is being filed by Mr. Rohit.

Mr. Lal Babu Mahto is directed to file an extra copy of the brief including limitation petition by 10.8.2008, when Mr. Rohit may receive it.

As prayed by Mr. Rohit two weeks time is allowedfor filing reply to the limitation petition as well as written notes of argument and further documentson merits , if any.

It is made clear that ex-parte order may be passed against none appearing party on the next date.

Put up for hearing on limitation and merits on 25.08.2015”.

2. Nobody appears for the appellant, inspite of the aforesaid order.

3. This appeal was allowed by  this Commission by judgment  dated 28.12.2011, the operative portion which reads as follows:

“7. In such facts and circumstances the appeal has to be allowed. The delay stand condoned. The appellants claim stand allowed. The O.P./respondent is directed to pay Rs. 1,60,000/- the price of the machine and further compensate the appellant with Rs. 20,000/- for mental agony, loss of earning with interest @ 8% from 1^st January 2006 till realization”.

4. Against the said judgment, the Respondent-Shri Rajiv Ranjan moved the Hon’ble National Commission vide Revision Petition No. 1375 of 2013, which was disposed of by order dated 29.06.2015, the operative portion of which reads as follows:

”9. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 28.12.2011 passed by the learned State Commission in appeal No. 206/2009, “Lal Babu Mahto versus Rajeev Ranjan” is set aside and matter is remanded back to State Commission to decide application for condonation of delay as well appeal on merits after giving an opportunity of being heard to both the parties. Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 07.08.2015”.

5. Perused the records carefully, and considered the prayer for condoning the delay of 512 days in filing this appeal and also the merits.

6. In the limitation petition, the following statements are made:-

“2. That, the impugned order was delivered on 12.12.2007 which did not come in the knowledge of the appellant for a long time. As soon as he came to know about the judgment, he obtained the certified copy from the Forum on 16^th September, 2008. He tried to obtain the other papers related to proceedings of the court below but he could not get success as he is an unemployed person. He is in great economic loss due to the acts of the opposite party/respondent ant he is going through a serious economic crisis.

3. That, because of paucity of fund and lack of required papers he could not approach the appellate court and when he came to the Commission in January 2009 he came to know that there is no Chairman in the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Jharkhand at Ranchi.

4. That, as soon as he came to know that the State Commission has started functioning, he has come before this Hon’ble Commission and he is filing the appeal”.

7. It is true that liberal approach is taken for condoning the delay, but then, there has to be proper and satisfactory explanation. The aforesaid explanation for the long delay of about 512 days is absolutely vague, general and sweeping. Even if there was no Chairman, or the commission was not functioning, the complainant could file appeal. He has not said that he tried to file appeal, but it was not accepted.

Therefore, there is no satisfactory explanation at all for condoning the long delay of about 512 days in filing this appeal.

8. On merits, it appears that the complainant-appellant purchased the machine in question from O.P.-Respondent on 10.10.2003 under a purely commercial agreement, which inter alia provided that the Respondent will get the machine installed and will get the training provided. Further, for 15 years, he will supply raw materials; will place orders and will do the marketing of the finished products. The machine was guaranteed for five years. Further, the complainant would not sell the finished goods in market without the permission of the Respondent etc. Thus the appellant-complainant and the O.P/Respondent entered into a joint commercial venture, under which the machine in question was purchased/supplied.

9. Moreover, the complainant could not prove that the machine in question was defective. He could not prove that the respondent promised that it would function at the power supply of 220 V.  According to the complainant it required three phase line for it’s running. This cannot be said to be a defect. A machine has to be run on proper power supply line. He himself gave a report dated 20.10.2003 to the effect that the machine was performing perfectly.

Further, the allegation of non-supply of raw material in February 2005 was also contradicted by his receipt dated 10.02.2005.

10. After carefully going to the records, we find no merit in this appeal.

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed on limitation as well as on merits.

Issue free copy of this order to all concerned for information and needful.

Ranchi,

Dated:- 25-08-2015