IMPORTANT POINT
It has become practice on part of government departments to take every lis to highest level, irrespective of stakes and issue involved, which practice needs to be curtailed.

This revision is directed against the order of the M.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (in short, “the State Commission”) dated 22.9.2015 in first appeal No.15/125 whereby the State Commission declined to condone the delay in filing of appeal by the petitioner department and as a consequence dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation.

2. Briefly stated, facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that the respondent/complainant filed a consumer complaint in District Forum, Indore alleging that on 18.4.2009 he travelled from Indore to Howrah in the reserved compartment and during the course of his journey his luggage containing valuables and jewellery etc. was stolen. It was alleged that on noticing the theft when the complainant approached the T.C. (the attendant of the reserved coach) and asked for the complaint book, the complaint book was not available. Ultimately, when the train stopped at Howrah junction the report regarding theft was lodged with the police. According to the complainant the opposite party by failing to ensure adequate security arrangement has committed deficiency in service. Thus, the complaint. The opposite party resisted the complaint and denied any deficiency in service on its part.

3. The District Forum on consideration of pleadings and the evidence allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner/opposite party to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.79,213 on account of the loss due to theft besides compensation of Rs.3,000 was awarded for mental harassment and Rs.1,000 were granted as litigation expenses.

4. The petitioner/opposite party instead of complying with the order District Forum and paying the aforesaid paltry sum to the respondent/complainant to make good his loss, preferred to file an appeal. The appeal, however, was filed with a delay of 2 months and 23 days after the expiry of 30 days period of limitation as provided under law. Thus an application for condonation of delay was also moved. The explanation given in the application for condonation of delay did not find favour with the State Commission. Accordingly, the application was dismissed and the appeal was also dismissed as barred by limitation.

5. Learned Shri S.A. Sattar, Advocate for the petitioner has contended that the order of the State Commission is a non-speaking order because the State Commission has summarily rejected the application for condonation of delay with the following observation:

“We have gone through the application very minutely and analytically and found the reasons stated in the application, very vague.

Hence IA2 for condonation of delay is rejected.”

6. No doubt the order of the State Commission dismissing the application for condonation of delay is cryptic and it does not even refer to the explanation actually given in the application. Be that as it may, we have perused the application for condonation of delay. In paras-4 & 5 of the application the petitioner has explained the cause for condonation of delay which is reproduced as under:

“4. That after drafting the appeal the amount of Rs.25,000 by way of demand draft SL. No.050516 dated 25.2.2015 was prepared. The said draft was deposited before the District Forum on 2.3.2015 and receipt of the same was obtained on 4.3.2015 and the appeal was filed alongwith the receipt before the learned State Commission. For the approval of said amount and obtaining the receipt, it took 21 days delay and the said delay was caused on account of departmental procedures as well as for the approval of the deposited amount from the accounts section. Additionally also the office of the appellant is situated at Kolkata and the concerned District forum is at Indore which is far away and also delay was caused on account of travelling and in submitting the appeal etc. In this way the appeal was filed against the order dated 5.11.2014 on 4.3.2015, the delay of 2 months 27 days was caused for the aforesaid reasons including depositing the