1.       These three Revision Petitions, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), by Spice Jet Ltd., arrayed as Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2 in the Complaints under the Act, are directed against a common order dated 05.10.2016, passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Jaipur (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeals No.938, 939 and 940 of 2016.  By the impugned orders, the State Commission has dismissed the Appeals as barred by limitation as well as on merits, observing thus:

          “The matter has come upon the application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act.  Admittedly the appeal has been filed after delay of 198 days.  It has been contended in the application that record was at another office hence, delay has been occasioned and mother of the advocate was ill but these two reasons cannot justify the inordinate delay of 198 days.

          Hence, there is no reasonable ground to condone the delay.  The application is rejected and on this ground alone the appeal is liable to be rejected but on contention of the appellant merit has also been taken into consideration.

          The facts are shocking.  Rs.125/- has been charged as transaction charges by the appellants inspite of the circular Ex. 3 which specifically directs that no airline should charge transaction fees and apex court has also held that in view of the directions no transaction fees should have been charged.  Inspite of this transaction fees has been charged which is clear violation of circular as well as mandate of the apex court.  Hence, the Forum below has rightly allowed the claim with appropriate compensation.  No interference is needed.”

2.       The Appeals had been preferred by the Petitioner Airlines, questioning the correctness and legality of the orders, all dated 17.12.2015, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Second at Jaipur (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint Cases No. 1411, 1409 and 1408 of 2013, preferred by the Respondents/Complainants.  By the said orders, the District Forum, while allowing the Complaints, had directed the Petitioner to pay to each of the Complainants a total sum of ₹25,125/-, i.e. ₹125/- towards excess charges recovered from the Complainants; ₹20,000/- as compensation; and ₹5,000/- as litigation costs, within two months from the said date, with a default stipulation of interest @ 10% p.a. on the said amount.    

3.       Since the Complaints, wherein the Opposite Party is the same, involved identical facts/common issue and the State Commission has also disposed of the Appeals, preferred by the Petitioner herein, by a common order, these Revision Petition are also being disposed of by this common order. 

4.       The Complainants, using Credit Card, had booked air tickets for their journey from Delhi to Coimbatore on certain dates.  When they received the tickets, they found that a sum of ₹125/- had been charged by the Petitioner Airlines on account of transaction charges, whereas as per the Office Order dated 17.12.2012, issued by the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), the Petitioner could not have charged the same.  The Complainants got issued legal notice to the Petitioner and requested for refund of the said amount.  When the Petitioner did not pay any heed to their request, the afore-noted Complaints came to be filed before the District Forum, wherein the Complainants had prayed for a direction to the Petitioner to refund to them the said amount as well as compensation and litigation expenses.

5.       Upon notice, the Petitioner contested the Complaints by filing Written Version.  On appreciation of the material available before it, the District Forum came to the conclusion that by charging the transaction charges, the Petitioner not only violated the directions contained in the aforesaid Office Order, issued by DGCA, it also adopted unfair trade practice in order to gain unfairly.  Consequently, while allowing the Complaints, the District Forum issued the afore-note directions to the Petitioner.

6.       Aggrieved, the Petitioner filed the afore-noted Appeals before the State Commission, with a delay of 198 days.  Identical Applications, praying for condonation of the said delay, had been filed along with the Appeals.  In paragraph 3 and 4 of the said Applications, the Petitioner had furnished the following short and crisp explanation:

“3.      That the Appellant submits that it had received the certified copy of the impugned order only on 21.6.16.  It is submitted that prior to this date, the Appellant never received any certified copy from the Ld. District Court, as per Consumer Protection Rules.

4.       That it is submitted that from the date of receipt of the aforesaid certified copy, there is delay of 198 days on filing the present appeal.  It is submitted that the delay has occasioned on account of the reason that some of the files had been kept at the Gurgaon office of the Appellant and some of the files were at Delhi in the office of counsel for the Appellant.  It is submitted that the mother of the said counsel for the Appellant (Amit Punj, Advocate) was not well and he had gone to his native village and could not be contacted.  The said counsel came back about 2 days back and thereafter he was contacted and he gave files back to the Appellant yesterday only and today, the present appeal is being filed.”

7.       As noted above, the State Commission having dismissed the Appeals on the ground of limitation as well as on merits, the Petitioner is before us in the present Revision Petitions.   

8.       The short question for consideration in these Revision Petitions is whether or not the State Commission was justified in declining to exercise the discretion vested in it under First Proviso to Section 15 of the Act and the impugned order suffers from any illegality or material irregularity in order to invoke the jurisdiction of this Commission under its Revisionary Jurisdiction?  

9.       Bearing in mind the broad principles laid down in a catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, viz., ‘sufficient cause’ cannot be construed liberally if negligence, inaction or lack of bonafides are attributable to the party, praying for exercise of such discretion in its favour, and that when a statute provides for a particular period of limitation, it has to be applied with all its rigors, as an unlimited limitation leads to a sense of uncertainty, we are of the view that the State Commission has not committed any jurisdictional error in coming to the conclusion that there was no reasonable ground to condone the delay caused in filing the Appeals.

10.     Evidently, the Petitioner was duly represented by its Counsel before the District Forum and Written Version on its behalf had also been filed.  In such a situation, even if there was no representation before the District Forum on 17.12.2015, the date when the Complaints were disposed of to the detriment of the Petitioner, and it had not received the certified copy of the orders passed on the said date, we fail to fathom any reason why there was delay of over six months on the part of the Petitioner in obtaining the certified copy of the orders passed by the District Forum. As the certified copy of the said orders was admittedly received by the Petitioner on 21.06.2016, it is clear that during the interregnum period neither the Petitioner nor its Counsel kept a vigil in the matter.  Even after receipt of copy of the District Forum’s order, the Petitioner took one month in filing the Appeals, which were already barred by limitation. The inordinate delay of 198 days is sought to be explained on the specious plea that it occasioned because of the reason that some of the files were kept at Gurgaon office and other files were at Delhi in the office of its Counsel; the mother of the Counsel was not well, necessitating him to be out of station; and 2 days back, when the Counsel returned, he was contacted and thereafter the Appeals were filed, with the aforesaid delay.  In the absence of any explanation from the Counsel, engaged by the Petitioner to defend its case, the explanation furnished was an after-thought, which, in our view, has rightly been rejected by the State Commission.  Further, tested on the touchstone of the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in  Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority [(2011) 14 SCC 578] to the effect that while deciding an application for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Act for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the consumer foras are entertained, we are unable to read any jurisdictional error in the view taken by the State Commission, warranting our interference. 

11.     Coming to the merits of the case, we find that both the Forums below have returned a concurrent finding of fact that by charging transaction fees, the Petitioner had violated the directions issued by the DGCA, a statutory body, whose directions are binding on all the Airline Operators.  In view of the said finding, the impugned order does not warrant any interference on merits as well.      

12.     For the foregoing reasons and bearing in mind the quantum of compensation awarded, i.e. ₹25,125/-, payable to each of the Complainants in terms of the orders passed by the both the Forums below, these Revision Petitions must fail and are dismissed accordingly.