1.       This Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), by a multi-national car manufacturing company, namely, Volkswagen Group Sales India Pvt. Ltd., Opposite Party No.4 in the Complaint, is directed against the order dated 06.11.2017, passed by the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Lucknow (for short “the State Commission”) in Appeal No. 224 of 2017.  By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the Appeal as barred by limitation.            

2.       The Appeal had been preferred by the Petitioner herein against the order, dated 21.06.2016, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ghaziabad (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint Case No. 59 of 2015.  By the said order, while allowing the Complaint, preferred by Respondent No.1/Complainant, the District Forum had directed the Opposite Parties, including the Petitioner herein, to jointly and severally hand over the car in question in working condition to the Complainant within a period of one month after carrying out repairs therein and, if it was not possible to do so, then provide a new vehicle of the same price to the Complainant.  Further, the District Forum had also directed the Opposite Parties to pay to the Complainant a sum ₹10,000/- as compensation and ₹3,000/- towards litigation expenses, with a default stipulation of penal interest @ 12% p.a. on the said amounts from the date of the order till realization. 

3.       On 11.11.2012, the Complainant had purchased a car, namely, Volkswagen Polo Trendline (Diesel), manufactured by the Petitioner, for a total consideration of ₹5,53,971/- from Opposite Party No.1, a Branch Office of the Authorized Dealer of the Petitioner, i.e. Opposite Party No.3.  Within one year of the purchase, the car started giving troubles and caught fire twice, necessitating repairs on 30.03.2014 and 14.04.2014.  For the repairs carried out on 14.04.2014, a sum of ₹11,000/- was received charged the Complainant by the Authorized Service Centre, i.e. Opposite Party No.2.  Even after these repairs, the car continued to have one problem after the other. Subsequently, when the car was in the premises of the Dealer, the said Service Centre closed down without any information to the Complainant about the whereabouts of his car.  The Complainant, vide his letter dated 23.04.2015, brought the matter to the notice of all the Opposite Parties but did not receive any response thereto.  In the said background, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties on the aforesaid counts, the afore-noted Complaint came to be filed before the District Forum, praying for the reliefs mentioned in the Complaint.

4.       Upon contest, the District Forum allowed the Complaint and issued the aforesaid directions to the Opposite Parties, including the Petitioner herein.  

5.       Aggrieved, the Petitioner carried the matter further in its Appeal to the State Commission, albeit, with a delay of 195 days.  The Petitioner had furnished the following explanation for condonation of the said delay:     

“3.      That the Ld. District Forum passed an award/order dated 21.06.2016 wherein, the Hon’ble District Forum directed the appellant jointly and severally with other Opposite Parties in the Complaint to return the car in working condition or to provide new car of similar cost along with mental agony and litigation expenses to the respondent no.1/complainant.

4.       That the respondent no.1/complainant chose to file the execution petition against the appellant on 06.01.2017 before the Hon’ble District Forum seeking compliance of order dated 21.06.2016 which had been passed in favour of the respondent no.1/complainant.  

5.       That the notice/summons on the execution petition were issued to the applicant/appellant on 06.01.2017 and which had been received on 10.01.2017 by the appellant and the matter is listed on 03.02.2017 for filing of reply to the execution petition and compliance of order dated 21.06.2016.

6.       That the applicant/appellant submit that the applicant/appellant had received the order dated 21.06.2016 sometime in July 2016.  The applicant/appellant states that during the period of July 2016 the applicant/appellant was in process of closing its office also situated on the 3^rd floor of the same building of its registered office (Address of registered office of applicant/appellant is mentioned as per the cause title of the Appeal).  The applicant/appellant states that possibly the order dated 21.06.2016 was received at the mail room located on the 3^rd floor and in the process of closing office at 3^rd floor and shifting all paraphernalia to the 4^th floor the said order 21.06.2016 was misplaced.  The applicant/appellant submits that it is only after receipt of notice on 10.01.2017 in execution petition before the Hon’ble District Forum, Ghaziabad the applicant/appellant came to know about the passing of the said Order dated 21.06.2016.  Thereafter, the applicant/appellant searched its records in the records room and could trace the copy of order.

7.       That on 10.01.2017 upon receiving of the summons/notice on execution petition issued by the District Forum filed by the respondent no.1/complainant for compliance of order dated 21.06.2016 then the applicant/appellant came to know the fact that the order dated 21.06.2016 had been passed against the Appellant company and the Appellant company jointly and severally held liable for compliance of order/judgment dated 21.06.2016.”

6.       As noted above, the State Commission has reached the conclusion that the Appellant/Petitioner had failed to make out a sufficient cause for condonation of the said inordinate delay in filing the Appeal.  Thus, declining to condone the delay, the State Commission has dismissed the Appeal as barred by limitation.

7.       Hence, the present Revision Petition. 

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

9.       Having heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and carefully examined the afore-extracted explanation furnished by it for the delay in filing the Appeal, I am of the view that the State Commission has not committed any jurisdictional error in coming to the afore-stated conclusion that no sufficient cause had been made out by the Petitioner for condonation of an inordinate delay of 195 days in filing the Appeal.              

10.     Admittedly, copy of the order dated 21.06.2016, passed by the District Forum, was received by the Petitioner sometime in July, 2016.  Bearing in mind the limited period of 30 days, as provided under Section 15 of the Act, as also the fact that it had been held jointly and severally liable to comply with the said order within a stipulated period of one month, the Petitioner ought to have pursued the matter with all the seriousness it deserved.  However, as is evident from the material on record, the Petitioner kept mum in the matter for a period of six months and ultimately filed its Appeal before the State Commission on 02.02.2017, with the afore-stated inordinate delay, that too on receiving notice on 10.01.2017 in the Execution proceedings, initiated by the Complainant for enforcement of the final order in the Complaint.  The said inordinate delay was sought to be explained by the Petitioner on the specious plea that during the process of shifting of its office situated on the 3^rd floor of the building, housing its Registered Office, to the 4^th floor in the same building, the copy of the order dated 21.06.2016 received by it got misplaced.  In view of the fact that the Appeal had been filed by the Petitioner only on receipt of notice in the Execution proceedings, the said plea does not inspire any confidence.  Yet, for the sake of argument, even if it is assumed that the state of affairs was in fact so and the copy of the order had been misplaced, the Application was conspicuously silent as to how only the said order was kept separately from the other Dak and got misplaced; by whom; and what action was taken against the delinquent official.  All these facts lead to the inference that the explanation furnished for the delay was an after-thought.  Even after receipt of the notice in Execution proceedings on 10.01.2017, when the Appeal, to be filed, was already barred by limitation, the Petitioner took more than three weeks in filing the Appeal, only on 02.02.2017. 

11.     In view of the above as also bearing in mind the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in  Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority [(2011) 14 SCC 578] to the effect that while deciding an application for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Act for filing Appeals and Revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Foras are entertained, I am of the opinion that the State Commission was justified in reaching the conclusion that the Petitioner had failed to make out a “sufficient cause” for condonation of the afore-stated inordinate delay in filing the Appeal.  I am convinced that the State Commission has not committed any jurisdictional error in dismissing the Appeal as barred by limitation.                    

12.     Consequently, the Revision Petition fails and is dismissed in limine accordingly.