JUSTICE V.K.JAIN (ORAL)

These revision petitions arise out of different orders passed by the State Commission dismissing the appeals preferred by the petitioner company against the orders of the District Forum, on the ground of limitation as well as on merits. Two consumer complaints were instituted against the petitioner company before the concerned District Forum. The complaints were allowed by the District Forum by way of two separate orders both dated 19.3.2018. Two different appeals before the State Commission against the orders of the District Forum were instituted. One appeal was instituted on 31.1.2020 whereas the other appeal was preferred on 10.2.2020.  The appeals having been dismissed, the petitioner co. is before this Commission.

2.      The applications which the petitioner company had filed before the State Commission seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeals are stated to be identical and to the extent they are relevant, the applications read as under:-

“2.    That the order dated 19.03.2018 was never communicated to the appellant and the appellants received Bailable warrants in execution application filed by the respondent (EA 10.94 of 2019) in the month of November, 2019. That the appellant on receipt of Bailable warrants approached the counsel who represented the appellants in the complaint before the Ld. Forum and on enquiry, it was submitted that the Order was handed over to Sh.Rajinder Singh Kalsi, Zonal Legal Manager at Chandigarh. That the appellant thereafter tried to trace the Order in the office but despite best efforts the copy of the order could not be traced. Also the official (Rajinder Singh Kalsi) never communicated the Orders to the appellants and resigned and left the services of the appellant in December 2018. Further, the appellants sought the entire record from the counsel but it was submitted that the entire record was also handed over by the counsel to Sh.Rajinder Singh Kalsi, The said Zonal Legal Manager thereafter sent her recommendation to the Head Office of the appellants at Pune for filing appeal and the competent authority at Head Office Pune decided to prefer an appeal before this Hon'ble Commission. Thereafter, the certified copy of the Order, complaint and reply were sought for filing appeal and was applied by the counsel. The certified copy was received on 10.01.2020. Thereafter the same was sent to the appellant office at Delhi for taking decision regarding appeal. On decision taken by the Appellant to prefer Appeal, the counsel at Panchkula was engaged and the entire record pertaining to the captioned complaint was sent to the counsel. Further, request for preparation of Demand Draft, towards deposit of statutory amount which is precondition to preferring Appeal, was made to the concerned department and the same was prepared on ...12.2019 and the Appeal is being filed today without any further delay. The delay in filing the appeal is due to above-said reason and procedural reasons and not intentional on the part of the appellant. In this process a delay of 645 days has occurred in filing the appeal.

3.        That from the day when the Order was passed, there is delay of 645 days in the filing the Appeal. The delay is neither intentional nor deliberate on the part of the Appellant but due to above-mentioned reasons.”

3.      It would thus be seen that the condonation of delay was sought on the ground that copy of the impugned order as well as the entire record was handed over to one Rajinder Singh Kalsi the then Zonal Legal Manager of the petitioner company based at Chandigarh but no action was taken by Mr.  Rajinder Singh Kalsi to challenge the order passed by the District Forum. This is also the case of the petitioner that Mr. Kalsi left the job in December 2018 and the company came to know of the order of the District Forum only when bailable warrants in the execution applications were issued in November, 2019. Thereafter, the petitioner company contacted the Advocate whom it had engaged to represent it before the District Forum and came to know that the entire record had been handed over by the counsel to Mr. Rajinder Singh Kalsi. The said Zonal Legal Manager then made a recommendation to the Head Office of the company at Pune for filing appeals and thereafter some time was taken in preparation of the appeal which came to be filed after a delay of 645 days.

4.      The petitioner company  did not file any affidavit of the counsel who was representing it before the District Forum to prove that the copy of the impugned order and the documents were handed over by him to Shri Rajinder Singh Kalsi. Even the date on which the copy of the order and the record was allegedly handed over by the counsel Mr. Rajinder Singh Kalsi was not disclosed in the application. The petitioner company did not file any affidavit of Mr. Rajinder Singh Kalsi to prove that the copy of the order of the District Forum and the record of the consumer complaints filed  before the District Forum were handed over to him by the counsel  but,  he could not process the matter till he resigned in December, 2018. There is no allegation in the application that the company had sent any communication to Mr. Rajinder Singh Kalsi asking him to explain why he had not processed the matter or challenging the order of the District Forum despite the said order being against the company and he having received copy of the order of the District Forum as well as the record from the local counsel. In these circumstances, the plea taken in the application remained unsubstantiated. There is no explanation as to why the petitioner company did not file affidavit of the local counsel with the application to prove that copy of the order of the District Forum and the record was handed over by him to Mr. Rajinder Singh Kalsi. Similarly, there is no explanation as to why the petitioner company did not even send a communication to Mr. Kalsi asking as to why he did not process the matter for challenging the order of the District Forum and thereby made the company liable to comply with the said order.  We do not know what response Mr. Rajinder Singh Kalsi would have given, had his explanation in the matter been sought by the petitioner company. The possibility Mr. Kalsi having altogether denied the receipt of the copy of the order and the record from the local counsel also cannot be altogether ruled out.  In these circumstances, there is no escape from the conclusion that the petitioner company had failed to substantiate the ground  which it had given while seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeals.

5.      The learned counsel for the petitioner company has drawn my attention to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court  dated 2.12.2019 in Singal Udyog Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. [Civil Appeal No.9161 of 2019], where the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a Consumer Forum could not have dealt with the matter on merit if it found that the matter was barred by limitation. I am in full agreement with the learned counsel for the petitioner company that having found no justification to condone the delay in institution of the appeal, the State Commission ought not to have gone into the merits of the appeals. The correct course of action would have been to dismiss the appeals as barred by limitation without examining the same on merits. That is why I have examined the revision petitions solely on the question as to whether the delay in institution of the appeals before the State Commission stands duly explained or not. In the case relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner company, there was a delay  of 150 days which was condoned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, in the present case not only the delay is  more than one year and eight months if computed w.e.f. one month from the date of the order of the District Forum, the petitioner company, in my opinion, has failed to substantiate the ground on which the condonation of delay was sought.

6.      For the reasons stated hereinabove, I find no justification to interfere with the impugned orders in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission. The revision petitions are therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.