1.       Heard learned counsels for the revisionist bank (PNB) and the respondent (complainant).  Perused the material on record.

2.       The District Forum vide its Order dated 17.06.2014 had allowed the complaint.

3.       The State Commission vide its Order dated 25.07.2016 had partially modified the award of the District Forum.

4.       This revision has been filed against the said Order dated 25.07.2016 of the State Commission.

5.       On 14.03.2018 both the parties were directed to file their written arguments as per Regulation 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the matter was listed for final hearing at admission stage on 30.08.2018.

On 30.08.2018 none was present on behalf of the revisionist bank even on the second call.  The case was dismissed in default for want of prosecution. 

On 14.11.2018 the case was restored subject to the conditions contained in the Order of 14.11.2018 and the case was listed for 22.01.2019 for final arguments on merit where the learned counsel was requested to also argue inter alia on the aspect of unfair trade practice. 

The Order dated 14.11.2018 reads as below:

This revision petition was filed in 2016 against the concurrent findings of the two fora below.  It was dismissed in default for want of prosecution vide Order dated 30.08.2018.

Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner on the M.A. No. 671 of 2018, which is a restoration application filed against the said Order dated 30.08.2018. 

The revision petition was filed by a scheduled nationalized public sector bank (PNB). 

The Order dated 30.08.2018 is re-called and the case is restored, subject to payment of cost of Rs. 25,000/- to the complainant through ‘account payee only’ demand draft within a period of four weeks, and subject to the cost being recovered by the public sector bank (PNB) from the functionary/ies of the revisionists responsible for the lapse in conduct of their case under a report-in-compliance to this Commission within a period of four weeks.

Issue notice to the complainant, subject to payment of Rs. 10,000/- to cover to and fro and allied expenses to be paid directly in her name through account payee only demand draft within a period of four weeks.

The learned counsel submits that the rejoinder to the reply filed by the complainant is as yet to be filed.  He is directed to file it within a period of four weeks and provide a copy thereof to the complainant.

List on 22.01.2019 for final arguments on merit, where the learned counsel is requested to also argue inter alia on the aspect of unfair trade practice.

(emphasis supplied)

6.       Today, in the forenoon session, learned counsel for the revisionist bank submitted that cost of Rs.25,000/- + Rs.10,000/- = Rs.35,000/- has been remitted to the complainant but that he has no information regarding the cost of Rs.25,000/- being recovered by the revisionist public sector bank (PNB) from the functionary / ies responsible for the lapse in conduct of its case or about the report-in-compliance that was required to be furnished to this Commission in compliance of the directions contained in the Order dated 14.11.2018. It was explained to learned counsel for the revisionist bank that the revisionist bank is a scheduled nationalized public sector bank, and inter alia having regard thereto, it had been specifically directed that the cost of Rs.25,000/- be recovered from the functionary / ies responsible for the lapse in conduct of its case. He was requested to seek instructions on the compliance of this direction as also on the reasons for non-submission of the report-in-compliance asked for by this Commission. In the afternoon session, learned counsel for the revisionist bank submitted that a voucher has been sent to him on ‘whatsapp’, which shows transfer of a sum of Rs.35,000/- from ‘legal charges’; however, no information has been furnished regarding the recovery of Rs.25,000/- from the functionary / ies responsible for the lapse as also about the non-submission of the report-in-compliance.

7.       Without attempting in any manner to adjudicate on the merit of the case, this bench notes that the revision was filed against the concurrent findings of the two fora below with self-admitted delay of  36 days. (The Registry has reported a delay of 43 days.)

8.      The stated reasons for delay in filing the revision, as mentioned in paras 2 to 4 of the application for condonation of delay, are as below:

2.       That the matter is drafted and attested on 14.12.2016 for filing of this revision of urgent is filed in delay after 90 days from 25.07.2016, the date of first communication of the Judgment but certified copy obtained by revisionists dated 08.08.2016 and then legal opinion sought from Senior Manager (Law) since 11.08.2016 on various occasion thereafter receipt of opinion from the same was on 19.11.2016, moreover revisionists was trying to established communications between branch, zonal and Head offices, therefore, delay including over load distressed just after demonetization effect after 9^th of November 2016 in India, hence, not intentional delay.  Herein provision of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and Rules framed there under.

3.         However, this separate application for condonation of delay of 36 days is also being filed along with this revision in order to avoid any legal complication in the matter; hence counsel was not file on time.

4.         That delay was not made intentional but it was due to official approval and communications from zonal and head offices and effect of demonetization in India.

  (paras 2,3 and 4 of the application for condonation of delay)

9.       The Act 1986 is to provide speedy and simple redressal to consumer disputes (Statement of Objects and Reasons). The period of limitation to file revision petition is 90 days (Regulation 14(1)(i) of the Regulations 2005). This revision has been filed with (further) admitted delay of 36 days.

10.     The stated reasons for delay, as reproduced, verbatim, in toto, in para 8 above, point towards managerial inefficiency and perfunctory and casual attitude to the law of limitation, and are illogical and absurd in explaining convincingly and cogently the day-to-day delay in filing the appeal.

11.     No just or sufficient cause to explain the delay is visible.

12.     A perusal of the previous Orders shows that time was taken from the Registry on 09.01.2017 and on 31.01.2017 to cure the defects. On 07.02.2017 the case was dismissed for non-prosecution as none was present for the revisionist bank despite the fifth call at 4:25 pm. On 08.03.2017 its restoration application was allowed and the case was restored to its original number. And then, as already stated above, the case was again dismissed in default for want of prosecution on 30.08.2018 and then again restored on 14.11.2018 subject to the directions contained in the Order of 14.11.2018. And, as already noted above, the directions contained in the Order dated 14.11.2018 have not been duly complied with, nor have any reasons for non-compliance been furnished.

13.     Having regard to the facts stated above, this revision is dismissed on limitation and also for lack of responsible prosecution, with stern advice of caution through imposition of just and reasonable cost of Rs.25,000/- to be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of the District Forum. 

14.     Needless to add that the District Forum shall undertake execution as per the law.

15.     Let a copy each of this order be sent to the District Forum and to the State Commission as well as to the chief executive of the revisionist bank within ten days by the Registry.