IMPORTANT POINT
Delay of 373 days in filing Revision Petition cannot be condoned.

Dr. B.C. Gupta, Presiding Member—This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the impugned order dated 24.07.2014, passed by the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as “the State Commission”) in Appeal No. 1937/2007, Yogendra Gupta vs. United Trucks & Ors., vide which, the said appeal was dismissed in default for non-prosecution as well as on merits, and in the process, the order dated 05.07.2007, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gorakhpur in Consumer Complaint No. 324/2004, filed by the present petitioner, allowing the said complaint, was upheld.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that as stated in consumer complaint no. 324/2004, the petitioner/complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 9,20,721/- with the opposite parties/OPs for purchase of a truck, out of which, Rs. 1,66,962/- was the margin money and the remaining amount of Rs. 7,53,759/- was deposited through Bank draft issued by C.T. Group Financer on 30.04.2004. It is alleged that the delivery of the said truck was made on 26.05.2004, i.e. with a delay of a few days, after accepting payment, which caused loss of interest of Rs. 4,600/- to the complainant. The complainant further stated that accessories including the hydraulic jack were not given alongwith the truck, which was an act of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The price of the hydraulic jack was Rs. 4,000/-. Further, the truck had to be brought to the workshop on 30.07.2004, as there was defect in the pressure plate. The Manager of the firm demanded a sum of Rs. 6000/- for the job, saying that the amount was meant for payment of excise duty. The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question dated 20.09.2004, seeking directions to the opposite parties/OPs to pay the following:—

“A. The interest of Rs. 4,600/- on Rs. 9,20,917/- as it was unnecessarily kept by opposite party for month and made the delivery of truck with considerable delay.

B. The loss of Rs. 4,000/-, the cost of hydraulic jack.

C. The loss of Rs. 48,000/- @ Rs. 3,000/- per day as the truck was unnecessarily, knowingly and without having any authority withheld for 16 days.

D. Compensation of Rs. 20,000/- for monetary and mental loss.”

3. The complaint was resisted by both the OPs by filing their written statements before the District Forum. The OP-1, United Trucks stated that they received the truck from the OP-2 Company on 25.05.2004 and delivered it to the complainant on the very next day i.e. 26.05.2004. After accepting money from the complainant, the truck could be delivered to him only after it was made available to them. Moreover, whatever accessories were given by the Company, had been handed over to the complainant. The OP further stated that the allegation of demanding Rs. 6,000/- from the complainant when the truck was brought to their workshop for the repairs, was wrong. In fact, the service of the truck was done on 30.07.2004, but the complainant himself did not come forward to receive the truck back.

4. The opposite party no. 2, the manufacturer stated in their written statement before the District Forum that there was no delay in making delivery of the truck to the complainant, as the date of delivery had been intimated to him earlier. Moreover, there was no scheme of providing hydraulic jack as one of the accessories at that time. The vehicle in question was a commercial vehicle and hence, the complainant did not come under the category of ‘consumer’. The OP-2 alleged that there was mishandling, rough use, careless driving and overloading on the part of the complainant. The basic structure of the vehicle had been altered by adding more leaves to it, for the purpose of carrying excess load. The District Forum, after considering the averments of the parties, directed that hydraulic jack should be given within a period of one month of the order of the District Forum. The