PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 9.4.2013 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench, Jodhpur (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. 19/2012 –  Marwar Engineering College Vs. Hanwant Singh by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld.

2.      Brief facts of the case are that Complainant/respondent took admission in 2005 in OP/petitioner College and deposited fees and examination fees.  Even without declaring result, complainant was given admission in next semesters and fees was charged for those semesters. In the year 2008, complainant was informed that he was not entitled to appear in B.E. Third Semester because he did not pass remaining examinations of first year.  Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District forum.  OP resisted complaint and prayed for dismissal of complaint.  Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint and directed OP No. 1 to refund Rs.1,06,250/- with 9%  p.a. interest and further directed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- for mental agony and Rs.3,000/- towards litigation expenses.  Appeal filed by OP No. 1 was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed along with application for condonation of delay.

3.      Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner on application for condonation of delay.

4.      Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner came to know about impugned order only by way of notice under Section 27 of the Act and further took time in getting translations of record which was in Hindi, hence, delay occurred in filing revision petition may be condoned.

5.      Petitioner has not mentioned in his application how many days delay is to be condoned.  Paragraphs 3 & 4 of the application for condonation of delay run as under: 

“3.     That the petitioner institution is a Directorship institution and for the purpose of the litigation of any kind he has to take resolution/legal assistance.  In the present matter the counsel appearing for the petitioner did not inform him regarding the dismissal of the appeal and the petitioner came to know regarding the dismissal only by way of notice under Section 27 of the Act of 1986 in the month of October, 2013.  Immediately thereafter the petitioner contacted his lawyer to collect the record. The petitioner got the file which was incomplete therefore the petitioner immediately filed the application for certified copy.

4.      That the petitioner in the month of Nov 2014 contacted his lawyer to file the present revision petition. It is respectfully submitted that the whole record of the present revision is in Hindi.  The counsel for the petitioner have to translate whole record in English to file the revision petition before the Hon’ble Commission.”      

6.      Petitioner has filed application for exemption from filing certified copy of impugned order in which he has mentioned that copy is not readily available with the petitioner and has placed photocopy as well as translated version of the impugned order.  Apparently, no reason has been given for not filing certified copy of the impugned order.  Petitioner has not mentioned in the application that he did not receive free copy of the impugned order and he has not mentioned in the application that when he applied for certified copy and when he received it and it appears that purposely he has not filed certified copy of the impugned order which would have made it clear when he obtained certified copy of the impugned order.  He has simply mentioned in the application that in the month of October, 2013, he came to know about dismissal of appeal, but he has not given any specific date when he came to know.  He has not filed copy of any notice of application under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. In such circumstances, it cannot be presumed  that petitioner came to know about dismissal of appeal only by way of notice under Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act in the month of October, 2013.

7.      Even if it is presumed that petitioner got knowledge of impugned order in October, 2013, he further mentioned that he contacted Advocate in the month of November, 2013 and time was taken in translating record which was in Hindi.  Perusal of revision petition reveals that translated version of complaint, written statement, order of District Forum and order of State Commission have been filed and no other document has been filed. No satisfactory explanation has been given for taking 8 months in getting four documents translated in English from Hindi. As there is delay of 347 days from the date of impugned order and at least delay of more than 150 days from the date of notice under Section 27 and no reasonable explanation has been given for condonation of aforesaid delay, this delay cannot be condoned in the light of the following judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

8.      In R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari 2009 (2) Scale 108, it

has   been observed:

          “We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition.”

9.        In Ram Lal and Ors.  Vs.  Rewa Coalfields  Ltd., AIR  1962 Supreme Court 361, 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.”

10.    Hon’ble Supreme Court after exhaustively considering the case law on the aspect  of condonation of delay observed in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation reported in (2010) 5 SCC 459 as under;

“We have considered   the respective    submissions.  The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The   legislature does not prescribe limitation with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that   they    do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek remedy without delay. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a period fixed by the legislature. To put it differently, the law of limitation prescribes a period within which legal remedy can be availed for redress of the legal injury. At the same   time, the courts are bestowed with the power to condone the delay, if sufficient cause is shown for not availing the remedy within the stipulated time.”       

11.    Hon’ble Apex Court in (2012) 3 SCC 563 – Post Master General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. and Anr. has not condoned delay in filing appeal even by Government department and further observed that condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the Government departments.

12.    Hon’ble Apex Court in 2012 (2) CPC 3 (SC) – Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority 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”.

Thus, it becomes clear that there is no reasonable explanation at all for condonation of inordinate delay of 347 days. In such circumstances, application for condonation of delay is liable to be dismissed.  As application for condonation of delay is to be dismissed, revision petition being barred by limitation is also liable to be dismissed.

13.    Consequently, the revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed as barred by limitation at admission stage with no order as to costs.