Tripura

StateCommission

RP/1/2019

THE INTER GLOBE AVIATION LIMITED - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHRI. AMLAN SHANKAR DEBBARMA - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. D. Bhattachrya, Mr. Abhilosh

21 Sep 2019

ORDER

Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala.

 

Case No. RP.1.2019

 

1. The InterGlobe Aviation Limited,

(Boardly known and distinguishes as IndiGo)

Having its Registered Office at Central Wing, Ground floor,

Thapar House, 124, Janpath,

New Delhi, Pin - 110001.

 

2. The Airport Manager,

Inter Globe Aviation Limited,

(Boardly known and distinguishes as IndiGo)

Indira Gandhi International Airport,

New Delhi, Delhi - 110037.

 

3. The Airport Manager,

Inter Globe Aviation Limited,

Maharaja Bir Bikram Manikya Kishore Airport

(The then Agartala Airport),

Agartala Domestic and International Airport,

Civil Airport, Post Office - Agartala Airport,

District - West Tripura – 799009.

… … … … Appellant/Opposite Parties.

•  

 

1. Shri Amlan Shankar Debbarma,

          S/o Shri Bhabani Shankar Debbarma,

          Krishnanagar, Thakur Pally Road,

          P.S. West Agartala, P.O. Agartala,

          District - West Tripura - 799001.

                                                                   … … … …  Respondent/Complainant.

 

 

Present

Hon’ble Mr. Justice U.B. Saha

President,

State Commission

 

 

Mr. Narayan Ch. Sharma,

Member,

State Commission

 

Dr. Chhanda Bhattacharyya,

Member,

State Commission

 

 

For the Appellants:                                  Mr. Kushal Deb, Adv.

For the Respondent:                                 Mr. Subhendu Bhowmik, Adv.

Date of Hearing & Delivery of Order:     21.09.2019.

O R D E R [O R A L]

U.B. Saha, J,

 

The instant Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners, InterGlobe Aviation Limited (IndiGo and others) under Section 17 (1) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 challenging orders dated 28.01.2019, 15.02.2019, 27.02.2019, 25.03.2019, 23.04.2019 and 30.05.2019 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as District Forum), West Tripura, Agartala in Case No.C.C.72 of 2018 along with an application for condoning the delay of 144 days.     

2. Today is fixed for order on condonation petition.
3. Heard Mr. Kushal Deb, Ld. Counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. Subhendu Bhowmik, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent (hereinafter referred to as complainant).  
4. Brief facts needed to be discussed are as follows:-

The complainant filed a complaint petition under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the learned District Forum claiming compensation amounting to Rs.5 lacs along with interest as he was not allowed to board in the IndiGo flight even after issuance of the valid boarding pass.

5. The learned District Forum registered the complaint petition and issued notice upon the petitioners (hereinafter referred to as opposite parties).
6. The opposite party-petitioners appeared through their Ld. Advocate, Mr. Debalay Bhattacharya on 13.12.2018 by way of filing vokalatnama.
7. On 03.01.2019, though the complainant appeared, but the opposite parties did not take any step though the date was fixed for filing of written statement. The learned District Forum fixed the case for another date i.e. on 18.01.2019 for filing written statement. On 18.01.2019, the opposite parties prayed for time to file written statement which was allowed as a last chance and the case was fixed on 28.01.2019. On 28.01.2019, a petition was filed on behalf of the opposite parties praying for time to file written statement stating that the complainant did not supply copy of the documents which had been filed along with the complaint and due to non furnishing of the documents the opposite parties were unable to prepare effective reply. As the opposite parties had consumed more than 45 days for filing written statement, the learned District Forum did not allow further time to the opposite parties for submitting written statement and consequent thereto, the case was fixed on 15.02.2019 for submission of examination-in-chief by way of affidavit by the complainant. On 15.02.2019, the Ld. Advocates of both sides were present and the complainant submitted his examination-in-chief by way of affidavit and accordingly, the case was fixed for cross-examination of the complainant on 27.02.2019. On 27.02.2019, the case was adjourned as prayed for by the complainant and on 25.03.2019 also, the case was again adjourned and finally, the complainant was cross-examined on 30.05.2019 and the case was fixed for argument on 24.06.2019. On 24.06.2019, the case was adjourned as sought for by the opposite parties and another date was fixed for argument on 09.07.2019.
8. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the earlier orders including the order dated 30.05.2019, the petitioners have preferred the instant Revision Petition along with an application for condoning the delay of 144 days.
9. The reasons for causing delay as explained in the condonation petition are as follows:-

“4. It is submitted that upon receipt of the Complaint, on and around 14.11.2018 advocate of the law firm sent the copy of the notice and Complaint to the local counsel at Agartala, and instructed him to appear in the matter before the Ld. District Forum, on behalf of InterGlobe Aviation Limited. It is further submitted that the InterGlobe Aviation Limited did not receive the complete copy of the Complaint. Therefore, on and around 12.12.2018, the advocate of Law Firm has sent an Application to furnish complete copy of the Complaint as InterGlobe Aviation Limited was served with an incomplete copy without any documents or annexures and requesting local counsel to file the same before the Ld. District Forum.

5. It is submitted that the learned local counsel at Agartala inadvertently failed to file the same before 28.01.2019 before the Ld. District Forum for the reason explained in the Affidavit of the Local Counsel, annexed as Annexure A/16 of the Revision Petition and not repeated here for the sake of brevity. However, the Ld. Forum via Impugned Order dated 28.01.2019, closed the right of the Petitioners to file Written Version to the Complaint. It is submitted that meanwhile the Petitioners prepared preliminary Written Version and on 27.02.2019 filed its Written Version before the Ld. District Forum praying from the Ld. District Forum to take the Petitioners’ Written Version on record. It is further submitted that the Petitioners on 30.05.2019 have filed an Application before the Ld. District Forum for furnishing the complete Complaint copy. However, the Ld. District Forum has dismissed the same stating that this is a very belated stage for filing the application stating it to be meritless and should have been filed before 28.01.2019. It is further submitted that the local counsel has also requested that the Written Version on behalf of the Opposite Party Nos.1, 2 and 3 be relied. It is submitted that the request of Petitioners to rely on the Written Version was also rejected.
6. That the accompanying Revision Petition has been moved within the time period permitted for the same, so far the order dated 30.05.2019 is concerned. Further, so far as the earlier order dated 28.01.2019, 15.02.20119, 27.02.2019, 25.03.2019 and 23.04.2019 are concerned, the Petitioners had no occasion to challenge the same earlier as it had filed the application as mentioned hereinabove and thus, the Petitioner had sufficient grounds/cause to the satisfaction of this Hon’ble Commission for the condonation of delay.”

10. The respondent-complainant has filed an objection to the prayer for condonation of delay wherein it is stated that the statements made in the condonation petition are absolutely vague. It is further stated that the opposite party-petitioners were allowed 45 days to file the written statement as required under statute, but the same was not filed within the aforesaid period. It is again stated that the petitioners had received the copy of the examination-in-chief of the complainant on date so fixed for examination-in-chief on 15.02.2019 and thereafter, the opposite party-petitioners had sought for time for cross-examination and finally cross-examined the complainant.
11. Mr. Deb, Ld. Counsel appearing for the opposite party-petitioners while urging for condoning the delay as sought for fairly submits that the written statement could not be submitted due to failure of his predecessor, Ld. local Counsel, Mr. Debalay Bhattacharya and more so, admittedly, the cross-examination was also done. He has finally contended that the delay in filing the Revision Petition is due to miscommunication between the law firm of the opposite party-petitioners and the local counsel i.e. his predecessor.
12. On the other hand, Mr. Bhowmik, Ld. Counsel while supporting the orders passed by the learned District Forum and objecting to the prayer for condonation of delay would contend that the delay is not properly explained by the petitioners. Nothing has been stated either in the Revision Petition or in the condonation petition as to why the opposite parties did not ask for copy of the documents before cross-examining the complainant. Mere a ground like failure of the Ld. Counsel in filing the written statement in time cannot be a ground for condoning the delay. More so, there is no explanation as to why they have taken 144 days in preferring the Revision Petition after the order dated 30.05.2019. Thus, it would be proper to dismiss the condonation petition.
13. We have gone through the condonation petition as well as the objection petition. In the condonation petition, there is nothing as to why the petitioners-IndiGo could not file the Revision Petition against order dated 28.01.2019, 15.02.2019, 27.02.2019, 25.03.2019 and 23.04.2019 in time. Though it is stated that the Revision Petition is in time so far the order dated 30.05.2019 is concerned. Reasons for delay is explained in Paragraph-6 which as follows:-

“          That the accompanying Revision Petition has been moved within the time period permitted for the same, so far the order dated 30.05.2019 is concerned. Further, so far as the earlier order dated 28.01.2019, 15.02.20119, 27.02.2019, 25.03.2019 and 23.04.2019 are concerned, the Petitioners had no occasion to challenge the same earlier as it had filed the application as mentioned hereinabove and thus, the Petitioner had sufficient grounds/cause to the satisfaction of this Hon’ble Commission for the condonation of delay.”

We are of the considered opinion that such explanation is neither reasonable nor satisfactory.

14. As per settled law, culled out from various judicial decisions, the above expression, 'sufficient cause' though deserves to receive a liberal construction, yet, a just and equitable balance has to be maintained between the right secured by the respondent as a result of the expiry of the prescribed period of limitation and the injustice of depriving the appellants of adjudication of their grievances on the merits of their appeal for causes beyond their reasonable control, which means the cause is bona fide and beyond the control of the appellants. There is no hard and fast rules what should be the 'sufficient cause' in a given case.
15. ‘Sufficient cause’ is the cause for which the opposite parties could not be blamed for their filing of appeal in time. The meaning of the word "sufficient" is "adequate" or "enough", inasmuch as may be necessary to answer the purpose intended. In other way, it can be said that "sufficient cause" means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part in view of the facts and circumstances of a case or it cannot be alleged that the party has "not acted diligently" or "remained inactive".
16. In Basawaraj & Anr. Vs The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer (Civil Appeal No.6974 of 2013), the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that “It is a settled legal proposition that law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The Court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. ‘A result flowing from a statutory provision is never an evil. A Court has no power to ignore that provision to relieve what it considers a distress resulting from its operation.’ The statutory provision may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the Court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same. The legal maxim ‘dura lex sed lex’ which means ‘the law is hard but it is the law’, stands attracted in such a situation. It has consistently been held that, ‘inconvenience is not’ a decisive factor to be considered while interpreting a statute.”
17. In Cicily Kallarackal Vs Vehicle Factory, IV (2012) CPJ 1(SC) 1, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed:-

“4. This Court in Anshul Aggarwal v. NOIDA, (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), has explained the scope of condonation of delay in a matter where the special Courts /Tribunals have been constituted in order to provide expeditious remedies to the person aggrieved and Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is one of them. Therefore, this Court held that while dealing with the application for condonation of delay in such cases the Court must keep in mind the special period of limitation prescribed under the statute(s).

5. In the instant case, condoning such an inordinate delay without any sufficient cause would amount to substituting the period of limitation by this Court in place of the period prescribed by the Legislature for filing the special leave petition. Therefore, we do not see any cogent reason to condone the delay.

6. Hence, in the facts and circumstance of the case as explained hereinabove, we are not inclined to entertain these petitions. The same are dismissed on the ground of delay”.

In the aforesaid judgment Hon’ble Supreme Court has highlighted that while dealing with an application for condonation of delay the Court must bear in mind the object of expeditious disposal of consumer dispute which would get defeated if the Court was to entertain highly belated petitions.”

18. In the case of Dr. Chandrakant Parshuram Mahajan Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and others [Revision Petition No.698 of 2018] 2019 (2) CLT 366, the Hon’ble National Commission while deciding the Revision Petition held that “It is true that counsel represents the party in the proceedings, however, the case relates to the party and party is required to be vigilant and watchful for its interest in the case proceedings before any court. It seems that the complainant was not pursuing the case properly, otherwise, he should himself have contacted the counsel to know the progress of his case. Special limitation periods have been prescribed in  for speedy disposal of consumer disputes. Honble Supreme Court in , IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) has observed the following:

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  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.”

The Honble National Commission also considered the case of R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, 2009 (2) Scale 108 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed; “We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition.”

Upon going through the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble National Commission and the Hon’ble Apex Court, we are of the view that neither the delay has been properly explained nor the same is reasonable and satisfactory. Hence, the condonation petition is dismissed and consequent thereto, the Revision Petition also stands dismissed.

Send down the records to the learned District Forum, West Tripura, Agartala.

 

 

 

MEMBER State Commission Tripura MEMBER State Commission Tripura PRESIDENT State Commission Tripura