1.       These Revision Petitions, under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), by Nirmal Seeds Pvt. Ltd., one of the Opposite Parties in the Complaints under the Act, are directed against the two orders, both dated 27.04.2017, passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Nashik (for short “the State Commission”) in Miscellaneous Applications No. 495 and 496 of 2015 in First Appeals No. 1147 and 1148 of 2015 respectively.  By the impugned orders, the State Commission has dismissed the Appeals, preferred by the Petitioner herein, as barred by limitation.   

2.       The said Appeals had been preferred by the Petitioner against the orders dated 30.03.2015 and 17.10.2014, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Jalgaon (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint Cases No. 926 of 2008 and 1787 of 2009.  By the said orders, while partly allowing the Complaints, filed by Respondents No. 1 in these Petitions, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties in selling defective seeds, which resulted in low yield and, consequently, loss of income to the Complainants/farmers, the District Forum had directed the Opposite Parties, including the Petitioner herein, to pay to the Complainants sums of ₹75,000/- and ₹1,20,000/- respectively, along with interest, ranging between 6% - 8% p.a. from the date of filing of the Complaints, besides compensation between ₹7,000/- and 15,000/- and litigation costs quantified between ₹3,000/- and ₹5,000/-.     

3.       Since the Petitioner is one of the Opposite Parties in both the Complaints, involving, more or less, similar facts; the issue involved in the Complaints being similar; and the Fora below having disposed of both the cases on identical lines, though by separate orders, giving identical reliefs to the Complainants, these Revision Petitions are also being taken up and disposed of by this common order.  However, for the sake of convenience, Revision Petition No. 2112 of 2017 is treated as the lead and the facts, referred to hereinafter, are also taken from the same:

3.1     On 30.11.2007, the Complainant had purchased Bajra seeds, amounting to ₹795/-, from Opposite Party No.2, the Dealer of the Petitioner.  The said seeds, manufactured by the Petitioner Company, were sown by the Complainant in his agricultural land.  Though, as per the requirements, the Complainant had taken care of the crop and used fertilizers etc., there was low yield, as the seeds were defective/adulterated. The Complainant made a complaint to the Agriculture Officer and some other concerned Authorities.  Upon inspection of Complainant’s field on 12.03.2008, the Seed Complaint Committee submitted its report, opining that “grain smuts in 48% cobs were not filled, due to which the farmer would not get the anticipated income and has sustained loss”. 

3.2     In the said background, the afore-noted Complaints came to be filed before the District Forum, praying for appropriate reliefs, mentioned in the Complaints. 

4.       Upon notice, while the Petitioner contested the Complaints by filing its Written Version, there was no representation on behalf of its Dealer.

5.       On evaluation of the material available before it which included the afore-stated reports by the Government Agencies and proceeding ex-parte against the Dealer, the District Forum, as noted above, partly allowed the Complaints and issued the afore-noted directions to the Opposite Parties, including the Petitioner. 

6.       Aggrieved, the Petitioner carried the matter further in its Appeals to the State Commission, albeit, with a delay, ranging between 120 and 301 days.  For condonation of the said delay, the Petitioner filed Applications as well.  Since the explanation, furnished by the Petitioner in both the Applications was on similar lines, for the sake of convenience, the explanation as furnished in the Appeal No. 1147 of 2015, is reproduced hereunder:  

“2)     That though as per record, the impugned judgment and order in CC 926/2008 was pronounced on 30/03/2015, its free copy were not sent to the appellant opponent for much longer period and as such it was unaware of the same.  Therefore the appellant Company enquired about the judgment in the Office of the District Forum Jalgaon and by filing an application in writing prayed for issuance of the certified copy of the Judgment.  After a continuous follow up at last the office of the DF Jalgaon pleased to issue the certified copy to the appellant only on 03/08/2015 by which the appellant acquired knowledge of the impugned judgment and order for the first time.  Though the certified copy of the judgment consists of an endorsement that the first copy was send wide Outward No. 1210/2015 dated 13.04.2015, appellant on enquiry was orally informed that the first/free copy of the judgment was never sent to the appellant.  For bringing said fact on record, appellant has also filed application dated 31.08.2015 before the DF under the RTI Act a reply to which is still awaited.  Copy of the applications dated 26.06.2015 and 31.08.2015 filed by the appellant before the District Forum in above reference is annexed with the list of documents in this appeal for ready reference.

3)       On getting the information of impugned judgment for the first time on 03.08.2015, the Law Officer of the appellant Company immediately placed it with his recommendation to file the appeal for the approval of the higher managing authorities of the Company.  On getting approval, immediately by Receipt No. 66 dated 02.09.2015 the appellant has deposited the statutory deposit of Rs.25,000/- in the District Forum Jalgaon within statutory period of limitation.  Copy of the Receipt No. 66 dated 02.09.2015 of the statutory deposit of Rs.25,000/- issued by Registrar, District Forum, Jalgaon is annexed hereto for ready reference.  Then the officer of the appellant with outmost urgent has approached to the Company’s Advocate at Aurangabad and has instructed him to file present appeal with necessary applications in it.  While doing all this exercise, a small unintentional delay for the reasons beyond the control of the appellant is caused in filing this appeal.

4)       Appellant therefore state and submit that from getting the knowledge of the impugned judgment and order on 03/08/2015, it has deposited the statutory deposit within 30 days i.e. on 02.09.2015 and this appeal is filed outmost urgency thereafter before this Commission at Aurangabad u/s 15 of the Act.  If the limitation is to be reckoned from the date of knowledge of the impugned judgment on 03.08.2015 there appears to be a delay of 11 days caused in filing this appeal.  However, if it is to be reckoned from the date of the pronouncement of the impugned judgment i.e. 30.03.2015 there appears to be a delay of about 136 days.  However, the delay so caused is unintentional, technical and due to reasons beyond the control of the appellant.  By this application appellant applicant prays this Hon’ble State Commission to condone the delay so caused in the interest of justice ….”

7.       As afore-stated, the State Commission has come to the conclusion that the above extracted explanation does not make out sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the Appeals. Consequently, both the Appeals have been as barred by limitation.  Hence, the present Revision Petitions.    

8.       The short question for consideration is whether or not the State Commission has committed any jurisdictional error in not exercising the discretion vested in it under First Proviso to Section 15 of the Act for condoning the delay in filing of the Appeals.  

9.       We have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner on the said question. 

10.     It is trite that when a special Statute prescribes for a particular period of limitation, it has to be construed strictly and has to be observed scrupulously. Even otherwise, an unlimited limitation leads to a sense of uncertainty. Bearing in mind these broad principles, we are of the view that the State Commission has not committed any jurisdictional error in coming to the conclusion that the Petitioner had failed to make out a sufficient cause for condonation of the aforesaid inordinate delay.     

11.     As noted above, the delay was sought to be explained by the Petitioner on the specious pleas that copy of the orders passed by the District Forum had not been sent to it; having learnt about the same, it obtained the certified copy from the District Forum on 03.08.2015; since there was an endorsement on the said copy that first copy was sent to it on 13.04.2015 whereas allegedly it had not received the same, it preferred applications under the RTI Act, on which reply was awaited; and subsequently the Counsel was contacted and the Appeals were filed before the District Forum, with the aforesaid inordinate delay. 

12.     In the absence of any supporting documentary material to the effect that the Petitioner had indeed not received the first copy of the orders, sent to it by the District Forum, the said plea as well as the averment in the Applications to the effect that on enquiry it was orally informed that first/free copy of the said orders was not issued to it, are misconceived and do not merit acceptance. Nothing prevented the Petitioner to inspect the record of the District Forum to ascertain whether or not free certified copy was sent to it. Further, even after receiving the copy of the orders passed by the District Forum admittedly on 03.08.2017, by which time the limitation period of 30 days, prescribed for filing the Appeals under Section 15 of the Act, was already over, the Petitioner merrily took about 40 days in filing the same. Insofar as the applications, purportedly preferred by the Petitioner under the RTI Act, are concerned, while the said applications have not been placed on record, it is also not indicated in the Applications, seeking condonation of delay, as to why the Petitioner did not take any action to elicit a response on the said RTI query, if there was such a delay on the part of the District Forum in furnishing its reply to the said query.  Accordingly, this plea also belies conviction. 

13.     In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the Petitioner had failed to make out any cause, much less a ‘sufficient cause’ for condonation of inordinate delay, ranging between 120 and 301 days, in filing the Appeals and the State Commission, for the reasons recorded in the impugned orders, did not commit any jurisdictional error in rejecting the Applications, seeking condonation of delay.               

14.     Consequently, the Revision Petitions fail and are dismissed in limine accordingly.