1.       By this Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), M/s PHI Seeds Ltd., Opposite Party No.1 in the Complaint under the Act, calls in question the correctness and legality of the order dated 05.06.2014, passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Bengaluru (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No.2080 of 2010. By the impugned order, while affirming the order dated 31.03.2010, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Gulbarga (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint Case No. 152 of 2007, preferred by the Respondent/Complainant, the State Commission has dismissed the Appeal, preferred by the Opposite Parties, including the Petitioner.  Though by the impugned order a number of cross Appeals, preferred by the Complainants for enhancement of compensation awarded by the District Forum as well as by the Opposite Parties for setting aside the order passed by the District Forum itself, were dismissed but the present Revision Petition is restricted only to the Complaint filed by the Respondent herein.   Vide its order dated 31.03.2010, while partly allowing the Complaints, preferred by several Complainants, including the Respondent herein, the District Forum had directed the Opposite Parties, i.e. the Petitioner, which is Manufacturer of the seeds, and its Dealer(s), to jointly and severally pay to the Respondent a sum of ₹2,26,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the Complaint till realization, besides ₹20,000/- as compensation for mental agony and ₹2,000/- towards litigation costs.    

2.       The Complaint came to be filed under the following circumstances:

2.1     On 22.11.2006, the Complainant had purchased 30 bags of Hybrid Rice seed, weighing 4 kg. each of Pioneer brand, produced and manufactured by the Petitioner, from its Dealer, Opposite Party No.2, at the rate of ₹900/- per bag.  After sowing the seeds, though the Complainant had taken all precautionary measures for growing the paddy crop by making huge investment towards fertilizers, pesticides, weed removal etc. but he noticed that at the time of semi-maturity stage of the said crop, there was no filling of paddy and it continued to have the empty husk.  Subsequently, the paddy crop failed because of the said reason.  The matter was brought to the notice of the Opposite Parties, with a request to conduct spot inspection of the field but they did not turn up and the paddy crop was about to ruin completely.  The Complainant harvested the crop and got yield of only 253 bags, weighing 70 kg. each (total weight 17,710 kg.)  Since the paddy crop was of inferior quality, the said bags were sold below the prevalent rate @ ₹305/- per bag.  The Complainant vide his communication dated 28.03.2007 requested the Seeds Inspector-cum-Assistant Director of Agriculture concerned for the field inspection but in vain. 

2.2     In the aforesaid background, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties in selling defective seeds, resulting in a loss of ₹5,61,235/- to him, the afore-noted Complaint came to be filed before the District Forum.  The Complainant had prayed for a direction to the Opposite Parties for making good the loss with interest @ 18% p.a., along with compensation of ₹1,00,000/- for the mental agony suffered by him.  

3.       On contest by the Opposite Parties, and upon appreciation of the evidence adduced before it, the District Forum, as noted above, partly allowed the Complaint and issued the afore-noted directions to the Opposite Parties. 

4.       Aggrieved, both the parties carried the matter further in their respective Appeals to the State Commission.  However, the State Commission while affirming the order passed by the District Forum dismissed the said Appeals. 

5.       Hence, the present Revision Petition.  

6.       It is pointed out by the Office that this Revision Petition is barred by limitation, inasmuch as there is a delay of 874 days in filing the same.  An Application, seeking for condonation of the said delay, has been filed along with the Revision Petition.  In paragraphs – 3 & 4 of the said Application, the Petitioner has furnished the following explanation:  

“3.      It is most respectfully submitted that Mr. Jitendra Jagota (Company Secretary) the ex-employee of the Petitioner’s affiliate company who was handling the present matter resigned from the company in the month of August, 2013, without communicating the status of the matter to the relevant authorities of the Petitioner.  No other employee of the Petitioner knew the existence of the matter.  As a result, no steps were taken to pursue the matter.  … …

4.       It is only on 17.01.2017 when the Petitioner received notice under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 wherein the Petitioner was called upon to comply with the order dated 30.03.2010 passed by the District Forum, the Petitioner herein learned of the said proceedings.  The Petitioner immediately applied for the certified copies of the records of the State Commission and the Hon’ble District Forum and is hereby challenging the said order at first available opportunity.”

7.       Having heard learned counsel for the Petitioner on the question of delay, we are of the view that the explanation furnished by the Petitioner is far from being satisfactory and the Revision Petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of limitation.  

8.       In the first instance, it is hard to believe that in a Company, incorporated under the Companies Act, except for a Company Secretary, named above, there was nobody else to look after its legal affairs.  That apart, from a perusal of copy of the impugned order, placed on record, it is evident that the certified copy of the same had been initially issued to the Petitioner Company on 01.08.2014.  Bearing in mind the stipulated period available for filing the Revision Petition under the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005, the Petitioner was required to file the same within 90 days but it has been filed only on 22.03.2017, with an inordinate delay of 874 days.  The said delay is sought to be explained on the specious plea that the Company Secretary, who was handling the matter, had resigned from the service of the Company in August, 2013.  Except for the said bald plea, no other convincing explanation is forthcoming from the Petitioner for the delay caused in filing the Revision Petition.  Evidently, it woke up from its deep slumber only when it received notice from the District Forum in the Execution proceedings, which the Complainant was compelled to initiate against them because of non-compliance with the directions issued by the District Forum as far back as on 31.03.2010.  Even after receipt of the said notice, the Petitioner took more than two months in filing the Revision Petition.      

9.       In view of the above, we are of the opinion that apart from the fact that the Application is not bonafide, the Petitioner has failed to make out any cause, much less a “sufficient cause” for condonation of inordinate delay of 874 days in filing the present Revision Petition, which we are not inclined to condone.  We are convinced that condonation of the said inordinate delay would cause further unwarranted harassment and mental agony already suffered by a poor farmer on account of loss of his seasonal crop.        

10.     Consequently, the Revision Petition is dismissed in limine on the short ground of limitation.