Strategic Freight Logistic Private Limited (Now as Freight Systems India Private Limited) and another v Mohan Jodaro Crafts and another

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

NEW DELHI BENCH

13 November 2013

Revision Petition No. 3455 of 2011

The Judgment was delivered by : Rekha Gupta (Member)

1. Revision petition no. 3455 of 2011 has been filed under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the judgment and order dated 02.05.2011 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (‘the State Commission’) in appeal no. 421 of 2005. The brief facts of the case are that:

Respondent no.1/ complainant firm vide invoice no. 24 dated 10.12.2003 had given clothes for export to respondent no. 2/ opposite party no. 1 – Aid India Shipping Services which were in 19 packets and costs of the goods were Euro 6,663.00. The goods given by the respondent no. 1 to respondent no. 2 were to be sent to the desired destination through petitioner no. 1/ opposite party no. 2 – Strategic Freight Logistic Pvt., Ltd. Respondent no. 2 had given the goods to petitioner no. 1 to get the same delivered at the destination and had taken the bill of lading from them and handed over the same to the respondent/ complainant. As the goods did not reach the desired destination, the respondent no. 1 firm enquired about the same from Strategic Freight Logistic Pvt., Ltd., on which petitioner nos. 1 and 2/ OP nos. 2 & 3 demanded documents of shipment from the respondent no.1 and even after giving the documents, claim of goods was not given which was alleged to be deficiency in service by the petitioners and it was desired by the respondent no. 1 that an amount of Rs.8,54,639/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from 10.02.2003 to till recovery be directed to be recovered jointly and severally from the petitioner/opposite parties.

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum – I, Jaipur (‘the District Forum’) vide order dated 07.02.2005 while accepting the complaint against the opposite party nos. 2 & 3 and “directed to pay to the complainant firm Rs.3,53,139/- within two months from the date of this order. If the same is not paid, the complainant firm is entitled from opposite party nos. 2 and 3 interest @ 9% per annum on Rs.3,53,139/- from the date of order till its payment. The opposite party nos. 2 & 3 are directed to pay within 2 month from the date of order compensation of Rs.10,000/- on account of mental agony and Rs.1,000/- towards cost of litigation, totally to Rs.11,000/-. The complaint of the complainant firm is rejected against the opposite party no. 1”.

2. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, petitioners filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission dismissed the appeal vide order dated 02.05.2011. Hence, the present revision petition.

3. Along with the revision petition an application for condonation of delay of 465 days has been filed. As per the office report, there is a delay of 65 days. The reasons given in the application for condonation of delay are that:

That the impugned judgment was passed on 02.05.2011. Thereafter the certified copy of the same was obtained by the counsel engaged in Jaipur for the State Commission, Jaipur the certified copy of the said order was received by revisionists herein on 28.06.2011 as the authorised representative/ A R of the present revision petition was on leave till 27.06.2011.

That upon receiving the order on 28.06.2011 the applicant/ revisionists contacted the Jaipur Branch Office to retrieve all the documents/ information related to the shipment under question. However, as the alleged missing consignment pertains to the year 2003 it took about a couple of month to retrieve the eight years old record and the same was delivered to the Delhi Office of the revisionist only in the third week of August 2011.

Thereafter, the present counsel was engaged to file the present revision and since all the pleading and the orders were in Hindi it took about couple of weeks towards the translation of the documents/ pleadings. Subsequently, the present revision petition was prepared in the end week of September 2011.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the case carefully.

5. The date on which the impugned order was passed on 02.05.2011 and the same was received by the Counsel has not been mentioned in the application nor has the name of the counsel. However, as per the certified copy of the impugned order, the same was received by the counsel on 16.05.2011. The counsel for the petitioner could not give any evidence to support his case that the impugned order was received by the revisionists only on 28.06.2011.

6. The reasons given for the delay are vague and general and fail to explain the day to day delay of 65 days.

7. The petitioner has failed to give reasons for the day-to-day delay and to provide ‘sufficient cause’ to condone the delay of 65 days. This view is further supported by the following authorities:

Recently, Apex Court in the case of Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV(2011) CPJ 63(SC) has observed as under;

“It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the consumer foras”.

8. In Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361 1961 Indlaw SC 462, it has been observed;

“It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by S.5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the enquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant.”

9. Accordingly, we find that there is no ‘sufficient cause’ to condone the long delay of 65 days in filing the present revision petition. Consequently, the present revision petition being time barred by limitation and is dismissed with a cost of Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand only).

10. Petitioner are directed to deposit the cost of Rs.5,000/- by way of demand draft in the name of “Consumer Legal Aid Account” of this Commission within four weeks from today. In case the petitioners fail to deposit the said amount within the prescribed period, then they shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum till realisation.

List on 20th December, 2013 for compliance.

Revision dismissed