JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

          The complainant/respondent took a loan of Rs.3,45,000/- from the petitioner company, for purchasing a vehicle and executed a loan agreement dated 28.01.2013.  The loan was repayable in installments.  The complainant/respondent allegedly committed default in payment of the installments.  The case of the petitioner is that since he could not pay the monthly installments, the complainant surrendered the vehicle to the petitioner company.  The vehicle was thereafter, sold for a price of Rs.1,75,000/-.  This is also the case of the petitioner that before selling the vehicle, they had sent a notice to the complainant informing that they would be constrained to sell the vehicle if the outstanding dues were not paid. 

2.      Being aggrieved from the sale of the vehicle, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint, seeking refund of Rs.1,80,378/- which the complainant had paid towards cost of the vehicle besides a direction to the petitioner not to recover any amount from him.  Compensation for the illegal seizure of the vehicle was also sought. 

3.      The complaint was resisted by the petitioner company which alleged that the vehicle had been surrendered by the complainant on account of his inability to pay the outstanding loan amount and therefore, it was sold after giving the requisite notice to him. 

4.      The District Forum vide its order dated 30.07.2016, directed as under:

“2. Non-applicant should not recover any amount towards recovery of loan from applicant.

3. The non-applicant by not giving notice to the applicant during sale of vehicle has not followed the legal procedure and hence an amount of Rs.10,000/- may be paid for the mental agony faced by applicant.

4. Non-applicant should pay Rs.5,000/- to applicant towards cost of litigation.”

5.      Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal.  Since there was a delay of 163 days in filing the appeal, the application seeking condonation of the said delay was also filed.  Vide impugned order dated 09.03.2017, the State Commission declined to condone the delay and consequently dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation.  Being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.  Since there is a delay even in filing the revision petition before this Commission, an application seeking condonation of the aforesaid delay of 42 days has been filed. 

6.      The first issue which arises for consideration is as to whether the petitioner had given satisfactory explanation for the delay of more than five months in filing the appeal before the State Commission.  The application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the State Commission, to the extent it is relevant, reads as under:

“4) It is submitted that, the appellant is filing the appeal challenging the impugned order dated 30.07.2016 passed in CC No. 685/2015 by the Consumer Forum at Nanded.  It is submitted that, as per the record of the learned Forum it is shown that a first free copy is alleged to have been issued to on 09/08/2016 but the same was never received or served upon the appellant.  It is submitted that, as the appellant has secured knowledge about the impugned order on 30.07.2016 as such an application seeking certified copy was made.  It is submitted that, certified copy for the first time was delivered in the hands of the present appellant on 22.11.2016.

5) It is submitted that, there is delay of 163 days in filing the present appeal as the other relevant documents which are required to file the proceedings were required to be secured from the earlier advocate so also in view of the directions of the Ld. Forum an amount of Rs.10,000/- was supposed to be paid or approval from the head office of the appellant company which is at Nagpur.

7.      It would be noticed from the above referred extracts from the application that the petitioner had very conveniently withheld the date on which it had applied for issuing certified copy of the order of the District Forum dated 29.07.2016.  In the absence of the aforesaid information, it cannot be known how much time the petitioner company took even for applying for the certified copy of the order of the District Forum. 

8.      The endorsement made by the District Forum on the copy supplied to the petitioner would show that a free copy of the order was delivered ‘by hand’ on 09.08.2016.  Obviously, the free copy would be delivered either to the counsel or to the representative of the petitioner company.  If this is so, there would be no justification for the delay of more than five months in approaching the State Commission by way of an appeal. 

9.      Even after obtaining the certified copy of the order of the District Forum on 22.11.2016, the petitioner did not show any expediency in the matter and took more than one month and three weeks in approaching the State Commission which was approached by way of an appeal on 18.01.2017.  Since the prescribed period of limitation had also expired by 22.11.2016, the petitioner company ought to have handled the matter expeditiously and filed the appeal soon after the certified copy was supplied to it.  There is really no satisfactory explanation for not filing the appeal soon after the certified copy of the order was obtained on 22.11.2016. 

10.    For the reasons stated hereinabove, I see no reason to take a view different from the view taken by the State Commission and hold that the delay of more than two months in filing the appeal had not been satisfactorily explained.  The order passed by the State Commission, therefore, does not call for any interference by this Commission.  Even otherwise, the facts and circumstances of the case are not such as would impel this Commission to interfere with the impugned order, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.  One of the material circumstance in my opinion, is failure of the petitioner company to serve the notice dated 29.05.2014 upon the petitioner and the other circumstance is that admittedly, the vehicle in question was not sold by way of a public auction and the vehicle was sold for less than half of its price just about one year and 4-5 months after it was purchased. 

11.    The revision petition as well as the accompanying application for condonation of delay in filing the revision petition are dismissed with no order as to costs.