Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
V.K.Jain, Presiding Member, Dr. B. C. Gupta, Member
Beej Evam Krishi Vikas Nigam & Anr. —Petitioners
versus
Pradeep Kumar & Ors. —Respondents
Revision Petition Nos. 3656 & 3657 of 2014
Decided on 21.1.2015
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioners:Mr. R. K. Bhawnani, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Abnormal delay in filing of revision petition cannot be condoned.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15, 17, 19 and 21—Revision—Delay— Revision Petition is delayed by 140 days—Neither application filed with revision petition nor affidavit filed thereafter really explains delay in filing revision petition—Only explanation given in application and affidavit is that Branch Office of petitioner contacted Head Office which after consulting Agriculture Department and other sources decided that petitioner was not responsible for payment and petitioner being a Government undertaking, delay occurred in process of taking permission for filing revision petition—Since petitioner has failed to satisfactorily explain abnormal delay of more than 4½ months in filing revision petitions and also considering nature of complaints as well as concurrent findings recorded by Fora below, Commission not inclined to condone delay in filing revision petitions—Revision petitions dismissed as barred by limitation. (Paras 4 to 6)
Result: Revision Petitions dismissed.
V.K.Jain, Presiding Member—These are two revision petitions challenging the order passed by the State Commission on 23.01.2014, whereby the said Commission disposed of the appeal filed by the petitioner Company, with a slight modification of the order passed by the District forum on 23.11.2012. By the said order the District Forum had directed opposite parties, National Seeds Corporation and the petitioner, Seed and Agriculture Development Nigam Ltd. to pay to the complainant an amount equal to the value of 230.40 quintal of Dhan in R.P. No. 3656/2014 and an amount equal to the value of 48 quintals of Dhan in R.P. No. 3657/2014. They were also directed to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint. It was further directed that the amount in question will be first paid by the petitioner/opposite party no. 4 and in case it is not paid by the said opposite party, it will be paid by National Seeds Corporation. The State Commission modified the aforesaid order to the extent that National Seeds Corporation as well as the petitioner were held equally liable to compensate the complainants.
2. These revision petitions have been filed on 24.09.2014, though the impugned order came to be passed by the State Commission on 23.01.2014 and a copy of the said order was prepared on 25.01.2014 and received by the petitioner on 28.01.2014. The prescribed period of limitation for filing the revision petition before this Commission being three months, computing from 28.01.2014 when the copy of the order was admittedly received by the petitioner, there is delay of 140 days i.e. more than 4½ months in filing the revision petition. The petitioner, therefore, has filed I.A. No. 6679/2014 and I.A. No. 6680/2014, seeking condonation of the said delay. The aforesaid applications to the extent be seen to explain the delay in filing the revision petition reads as under:-
“2. That the order was passed on 23.01.2014 and the copy was prepared on 25.01.2014 and it was received on 28.01.2014.
3. That the petitioner contacted the head office of the Beej Nigam and the head office after verification and after consulting the agriculture department and other sources came to the decision that the Beej Nigam was not responsible for the payment and circular was collected from the National Seed Corporation Limited and because of this reason there was delay in filing the Revision Petition.
4. That the C.G. Beej Nigam is a government undertaking institution and because of the process of taking the permission for filing the Revision Petition the delay has occurred. The delay in filing the Revision Petition is of 140 days.
5. That Revision Petition is delayed by 140 days. The petitioner prays the Hon’ble Commission to hear the case on merits as the delay in filing the Revision Petition is not intentionally but due to above mentioned circumstances. Therefore the petitioner requested the Hon’ble Commission to condone the delay and decide the Revision Petition on merits.”
3. When these revision petitions came up for hearing on 11.12.2014, the learned counsel for the petitioner took an adjournment to file a better application explaining the delay in filing the revision petitions. The petitioner has thereafter filed an affidavit of Deputy Manager of a Branch Office, seeking to explain the said delay. The aforesaid affidavit to the extent it is relevant reads as under:-
“2. That the order was passed on 23.01.2014 and the copy was prepared on 25.01.2014 and it was received on 28.01.2014. That the petitioner contacted the head office of the Beej Nigam and the head office after verification and after consulting the agriculture department and other sources came to the decision that the Beej Nigam was not responsible for the payment and circular was collected from the National Seed Corporation Limited and because of this reason there was delay in filing the Revision Petition.
That the C.G. Beej Nigam is a government undertaking inst
