STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
Miscellaneous Application No.483 of 2019
in/and
Revision Petition No.15 of 2019
Date of institution : 15.03.2019
Date of Decision : 13.05.2019
M/s Amazon (Correct Name Amazon Seller Services Private Limited), Registered Office at Brigade Gateway, 8th Floor, 26/1, Dr. Rajkumar Road, Malleshwaram (W), Bangalore – 560 055, India through its Authorized Signatory Shri Rahul Sundaram
(wrongly impleaded in complaint as Ground Floor, Nego Complex, Pakhowal Road, F-Block, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Ludhiana, Punjab 01614587666 through its C.E.O.)
….Applicants/Petitioner /OP No.3
Versus
1. Sukhwinder Kaur W/o Sh. Avinder Singh, R/o House No. 2432, Street No.14, Shaheed Karnail Singh Nagar, Gill Road, Ludhiana.
….Respondent No.1/Complainant
2. Cloudtail India Pvt. Ltd., Ajaneya Infrastructure Project No.38 and 39, Soukya Road, Kacherakanhalli, Hoskote, Taluka, Bangalore, Rural District Bangalore, Karnataka through its Authorized Officer.
…Respondent No.2/OP No.1
3. Lenovo Mobile Service Centre, 1st Floor, 457, Model House, Charkhamba Chowk, Near Samby Collection, Ludhiana through its Authorized Officer.
…Respondent No.3/OP No.2
Miscellaneous Application for condonation of delay of 518 days in filing the revision petition.
AND
Revision Petition against the order dated 17.07.2017 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana.
Quorum:-
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President
Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Member
Present:-
For the petitioner : Sh.Inderjit Singh, Advocate
For respondent No.1 : Ms.Harpreet Kaur Arora, Advocate
JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL, PRESIDENT
Ms.Harpreet Kaur Arora, Advocate has filed power of attorney on behalf of respondent No.1.
2. The present revision petition has been filed along with the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 518 days in filing the revision petition, which has been directed against the interim order dated 17.07.2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana(in short, “the District Forum”), whereby the petitioner/OP No.3 was proceeded against exparte.
3. It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Forum.
4. Facts of the case are not necessary for disposal of this revision petition as the challenge is only to the order dated 17.07.2017 vide which petitioner/OP No.3 has been proceeded ex-parte. Suffice it to mention that the respondent No.1/complainant (in short ‘complainant’) filed a consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, “C.P. Act”) against the OPs. Firstly District Forum sent notice to OP No.3, which was received back without any report. Thereafter, fresh summons were issued for 30.05.2017. But on 30.05.2017 no appropriate order was passed against OP No.3 and the fresh summons were issued for 17.07.2017. On 17.07.2017, registered cover sent to OP No.3 was received back with the report refusal and the same was deemed as appropriate service. None appeared on behalf of OP No. 3 and hence, OP No. 3 was proceeded against exparte and the case was adjourned for evidence of the complainant. Hence, this Revision Petition by OP No.3.
Misc. Application No.483 of 2019
5. Brief facts, as averred in the application, are that the delay in filing the revision petition has occurred due to the reason the complainant has impleaded OP No.3 in the complaint with the address M/s Amazon, Ground Floor, Nego Complex, Pakhowal Road, F-Block, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Ludhiana, Punjab but the same is neither the correct name nor address of the petitioner/OP No.3 and it was pleaded that therefore OP No.3 was not served in the complaint case. It was further pleaded that on 28.02.2019, empanelled counsel of the petitioner firm at Ludhiana visited the District Forum in another case and he came to know about the proceedings in this consumer complaint. It transpired that one local entity with similar kind of name at Ludhiana, which is working in the field of Study Visa, Tourist Visa and Financial Assistance etc. has been impleaded as OP No.3 in the complaint but the same has no relation or concern with OP No.3 i.e. Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. nor this is the local office address of OP No.3 in Ludhiana. It was pleaded that the petitioner/OP No.3 firstly came to know about the pendency of the case on 28.02.2018 from their counsel at Ludhiana and states that as per above facts, there is no delay in filing the present revision petition and the present application is being filed on the safer side to cover up the technical objection, if any, raised by the Registry. It was stated that if any delay has occurred that has occurred due to the abovesaid reasons, which is neither intentional nor deliberate. It was prayed that the application be accepted and the delay, if any occurred, in filing the present revision petition be condoned, in the interest of justice.
Contentions of the Applicant
6. We have heard learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner as well as learned counsel for respondent No.1 and have gone through the revision petition carefully.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner vehemently contended that the delay occurred in filing the revision petition is neither willful nor deliberate, but happened due to the reasons narrated above. It is averred that as the delay occurred due to the circumstances mentioned in the application so there is no intentional delay on the part of the applicant/petitioner, rather, if any happened, the same is due to bonafide reasons and prayed that the same may be condoned and the revision petition is liable to be decided on merits.
8. Per contra learned counsel for respondent No.1 contended that the order passed by the District Forum is legal and valid and there is no perversity in the same and the revision petition deserves to be dismissed.
9. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner as well as learned counsel for respondent No.1.
10. The present revision petition has been filed, along with the huge delay of 518 days in filing the revision petition. However, no cogent reasons and grounds have come forward to explain the huge delay of 518 days in filing the revision petition. The petitioner has contended in the application that they have come to know about the pendency of this case when their counsel at Ludhiana appeared before the District Forum on 28.02.2019 in an another case but this contention of the applicant has no force because neither in the application the applicant has disclosed the name of the counsel nor annexed any document supporting their contention to prove, which case was listed on 28.02.2019 before the District Forum. Secondly, it is transpired that the District Forum had proceeded OP No.3 exparte after refusal of the notice by OP No.3, therefore, it is deemed to be proved that OP No.3 was served at the address mentioned in the complaint but the applicant/petitioner in support of their case did not annex the affidavit of any employee/authorized person of Amazon Consultant that they refused this notice due to the reason that the same do not relate to them. It is also mentioned in the order that postal envelop received with the report ‘refusal’ but not mentioned the fact that it did not relates to OP No.3 and the ‘refusal’ deemed as appropriate service in the eyes of law. Therefore, it is crystal clear from the above facts that the applicant/petitioner/OP No.3 was avoiding the proceedings before the District Forum and they failed to prove any cogent evidence to support their contentions, therefore, the stand of the applicant/petitioner/OP No.3 is not acceptable in the eyes of law and for this reason other party should not suffer. Another factor is that along with the application for condonation of delay, no affidavit of any authorized company official is filed, rather, the counsel for the applicant/petitioner has filed his own affidavit in support of the application for condonation of delay and in view of the above circumstances, the same is not acceptable.
11. There is huge delay of 518 days in filing the revision petition before this Commission. Specific time has been given under the Consumer Protection Act for the disposal of the complaint and for filing of the revision petition and the right accrued to the other party cannot be taken away in favour of one party, who was slack and non-vigilant of his right. Reference has also been made to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case “Kamlesh Babu and Ors. Vs Lajpat Rai Sharma and Others”, 2008(3) The Punjab Law Reporter-455, while interpreting and explaining the scope of Section 3(1) of the Limitation Act, observed as follows:-
“It is well settled that Section 3(1) of the Limitation Act casts a duty upon the court to dismiss a suit or an appeal or an application, if made after the prescribed period, although, limitation is not set up as a defence”.
Therefore, no plausible explanation is given for the lapse of 518 days in filing the revision petition, which is already delayed by long time. Chain of sequence of events, which caused the delay of 518 days in filing the revision petition, has not been described in order to co-relate the various events which allegedly took place from time to time. The application has been filed in a very casual manner, without disclosing the detailed explanation and supporting evidence about the delay caused in filing the revision petition. The applicant has adopted a careless and casual approach in filing the application as well as the revision petition. The law is settled that the delay can be condoned when it has been properly explained, but the delay due to casual approach cannot be condoned, at the asking of the applicant.
12. It was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority”, 2011 (14) SCC 578 that while deciding an application for condonation of delay in the cases under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the Court has to keep in mind that special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Act for filing the appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated, if the highly belated petitions are to be entertained.
13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case “Lanka Venkateswarlu (D) By LRs. Vs State of A.P. & Others”, 2011 (2) RCR Civil-880 (SC), after considering the entire case law on the point of delay, in Para-26(relevant portion) observed as under:-
“Once a valuable right has accrued in favour of one party as a result of the failure of the other party to explain the delay by showing sufficient cause and its own conduct, it will be unreasonable to take away that right on the mere asking of the applicant, particularly when the delay is directly a result of negligence, default or inaction of that party. Justice must be done to both parties equally. Then alone the ends of justice can be achieved. If a party has been thoroughly negligent in implementing its rights and remedies, it will be equally unfair to deprive the other party of a valuable right that has accrued to it in law as a result of his acting vigilantly”.
14. In view of above discussion and the law laid down, it is clear that the delay has to be explained properly and sufficient cause for causing delay must be disclosed and the delay caused on account of dilatory tactics, inaction and casual approach cannot be condoned. In the present case, as discussed above, no valid reasons or the explanations have been given for condonation of the delay of 518 days. Thus, we do not find any ground to condone the huge delay of 518 days in filing the revision petition.
15. In view of our above discussion, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed, being without any merit.
Main Case
16. As the application for condonation of delay has been dismissed, therefore, revision petition also stands dismissed, being barred by time.
(JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL)
PRESIDENT
(MRS. KIRAN SIBAL)
MEMBER
May 13, 2019.
