JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

          The complainants in these matters are the victims of connivance between the postal employees and some postal agents, as a result of which, the hard earned money of the complainants was withdrawn from the post office and was misappropriated.  The complainants had opened recurring deposit accounts with Deesa Post Office at Deesa in District Banaskantha of Gujarat.  They made deposits in the said accounts from time to time.  Their grievance is that the money which they had deposited in the recurring accounts, was illegally withdrawn, in connivance with postal employees, on the basis of forged documents and later the accounts which they had opened in the postal office were also closed.  On coming to know of the said acts on the part of the postal employees and postal agents, they lodged FIR with the concerned Police Station and also filed Consumer Complaints against the petitioners seeking payment of the amount which they had deposited with the said Post Office alongwith compensation. 

2.      The complaints were resisted by the petitioners which took a preliminary objection that the same were barred by limitation.  On merits, it was stated that the relevant documents had already been handed over to the police which was investigating the matter. 

3.      The District Forum ruled in favour of the complainants and directed refund of the amount which they had filed in the respective accounts alongwith interest @ 9% per annum.  Token compensation was also awarded to them. 

4.      Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioners approached the concerned State Commission by way of separate appeals.  The said appeals having been dismissed, the petitioners are before this Commission by way of these revision petitions.  Since there is delay of more than eight months in filing the revision petitions, applications seeking condonation of the said delay have also been filed. 

5.      The impugned order came to be passed by the State Commission on 12.09.2017.  These revision petitions have been filed on 05.10.2018, more than one year after the said order was passed.  The delay in filing the revision petition is sought to be explained in the following manner:

4.      That the petitioners sought legal opinion from the ACGSC Ahmedabad on 11.10.2017 whether to assail the impugned order/judgment or not and whether to implement the order/directions of the Hon’ble Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Gujarat State, Ahmedabad in Appeal No. 129 of 2017.

5.      That once the petitioners received the legal opinion from the office of ACGSC Ahmedabad on 11.10.2017, on the directions of the Department of Posts, Ministry of Communication, the branch secretariat send the legal opinion to file a revision petition before the Hon’ble National Commission for Disputes Redressal Commission, sNew Delhi.

6.      That it is pertinent to mention here that on the directions of the Department of Posts, Ministry of Communication, the case alongwith the requisite documents were referred to the Directorate, INV for further necessary action on 19.01.2018/12.02.2018 and was again reminded on 28.03.2018 but no reply was received by them. 

7.      That the petitioner submits that the circle officer vide letter no.INV/Misc-Corr/2018 dated 25.05.2018 directed the Department of Posts, Ministry of Communication to file an appeal thereby challenging the said impugned order dated 12.09.2017. 

8.      That the petitioner submits that thereafter, the Department of Posts, Ministry of Communication addressed three letters dated 05.06.2018, 24.07.2018 & 31.07.2018 to the Deputy Director General (FS), Dak Bhawan, New Delhi to nominate ACGSC for defending the case before Hon’ble National Commission for Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi.

9.      That the above said delay in filing revision petition occurred due to the administrative procedures and is neither intentional or deliberate. 

6.      It is evident from a bare perusal of the application that the copy of the impugned order had been received by the petitioner on 09.10.2017.  It is alleged that legal opinion was sought on 11.10.2017 whether to challenge the order passed by the District Forum or to implement the same.  It is indicated in para 5 of the application that the legal opinion was received from ACGSC, Ahmedabad on 11.10.2017 and the Branch Secretariat sent the legal opinion to file a revision petition before this Commission.  It is alleged in para 6 of the application that on the directions of the Department of Posts, the case alongwith the requisite documents was referred to the Directorate, INV, for further necessary action on 19.01.2018/12.02.2018 followed by a reminder on 28.03.2018 but no reply was received.  It is not explained as to why the relevant documents were not sent to the Directorate on 11.10.2017 or soon thereafter, instead of waiting till 19.01.2018/12.02.2018.  Moreover, it is not explained as to why the Directorate, INV did not take prompt action in the matter and did not take the decision to challenge the impugned order soon after receiving a reference from the concerned Post Office.  Even after directions had been received on 25.05.2018 to challenge the impugned order, no promptitude was shown by the petitioners in the matter and even a counsel was not nominated soon thereafter.  Three letters are stated to have been sent to the Deputy Director General (FS), Dak Bhawan, New Delhi to nominate ACGSC for filing the case before this Commission.  The above referred facts and circumstances betray total lack of coordination and gross negligence in pursuing the matter, which has resulted in delay of more than eight months in filing the revision petition.  In fact, it has taken the petitioners almost one year to file these petitions after receiving the copy of the impugned order on 09.10.2017. 

7.      One of the purpose behind enactment of the Consumer Protection Act is to provide an expeditious remedy to the consumers who are aggrieved on account of any defect or deficiency in the goods purchased or services hired or availed by him as the case may be.  It is towards achieving this objective that the Act enjoins upon the fora below to endeavor to decide a Consumer Complaint within a period of three months.  The said purpose is bound to be defeated if the revision petitions filed after such an abnormal delay are entertained without any satisfactory explanation for the said delay.  This is more so when the petitioner has lost before both the fora below and therefore, is seeking to challenge the concurrent orders passed by the said fora. 

8.      Even otherwise, on merits, I find that the petitioner seems to have practically no defence.  The reply filed by it before the District Forum did not give any explanation as to how the hard earned money which the complainants had deposited with the Post Office, came to be released on the basis of forged signatures in connivance with postal employees.  Therefore, the facts and circumstances of the matters also do not justify interference by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction at such a belated stage. 

9.      For the reasons stated hereinabove, the applications seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision petitions are dismissed.  Consequently, the revision petitions are dismissed as barred by limitation.