This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Pradeep Kumar Soni against the order dated 21.01.2019 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in FA No.1072 of 2018.

2.      Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner purchased a motorcycle from the respondents.  It is alleged in the complaint that he paid Rs.59,700/- to the respondents and kacha receipt was given for this amount.  However, when the delivery of motorcycle was taken, the respondents gave pakka receipt of only Rs.52,236/-. The petitioner/complainant filed a consumer complaint bearing no.438 of 2017 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sawai Madhopur, (in short ‘the District Forum’) praying that the opposite parties be directed to refund Rs.7,464/- alongwith a compensation of Rs.19,00,000/-.  The complaint was contested by the opposite parties by filing the written statement.  It was stated that the price of the motorcycle was Rs.52,236/- and including accessories, it was about Rs.59,700/-.  It was further stated that the opposite parties have received only Rs.52,236/- and accordingly, the receipt has been given.  The District Forum vide its order dated 30.11.2018 dismissed the complaint on the ground of limitation.  The complainant preferred appeal before the State Commission, which was dismissed vide its order dated 21.01.2019.

3.      Hence the present revision petition.

4.      Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant at the admission stage.  Learned counsel stated that the revision petition has been filed with delay of 235 days, however, the reason for delay is genuine and the same is required to be condoned on the ground mentioned in the application for condonation of delay. 

5.      Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the delivery was given on 09.11.2015 and the complainant was asked to come on 13.11.2015 to collect the pakka receipt.  On 13.11.2015 the pakka receipt was given only for Rs.52,236/- to the complainant whereas, the complainant had paid incash Rs.59,700/-.  The complaint was filed on 20.11.2017.  Thus, the complaint was only delayed by about seven days. However, the District Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground of limitation.  The State Commission has also dismissed the appeal filed by the complainant against the order of the District Forum.  The case of the complainant is very genuine as he has paid to the opposite parties a sum of Rs.59,700/-whereas, the receipt of Rs.52,236/- has been given to the complainant.  This is clearly unfair trade practice adopted by the opposite parties.  The learned counsel explained that the complainant was trying to impress upon the opposite parties to give the correct receipt and therefore, he could not file the complaint in time.  It was argued that the delay should have been condoned as the complainant had a strong case on merit.

6.      I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and examined the record.  First of all it is seen that there is a delay of 235 days in filing the present revision petition.  It has been stated in the application for condonation of delay that the counsel given by the Delhi State Legal Authority did not take any action for seven months to file the revision petition and that is why the revision petition has been filed through another counsel and delay has happened.  Though, there seems no justification for waiting for seven months on the part of the petitioner, still I am inclined to condone the delay in the facts and circumstances of the case and the delay in filing revision petition is condoned.

7.      The District Forum has dismissed the complaint on the ground of limitation.  It is seen that the cause of action arose on 13.11.2015 when the pakka receipt of Rs.52,236/- was given to the complainant.  The complaint has been filed on 20.11.2017 and therefore, it is clear that the complaint has not been filed within the period of two years from the date of cause of action.  The State Commission has clearly recorded that no application for condonation of delay was filed by the complainant before the District Forum and therefore, the District Forum did not have any option to condone the delay even if the District Forum wanted to do the same. The legal position is very clear in this regard that until the condonation of delay is sought for, the same cannot be condoned.  This position is made clear in the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of N.Shrikhande vs Anita Sena Fernandes AIR 2011 SC 212 wherein the following has been observed:

   “14. A reading of the above noted provisions makes it clear that the District Forum, the State Commission and the National Commission are not bound to admit each and every complaint. Under Section 12(3), the District Forum is empowered to decide the issue of admissibility of the complaint. The District Forum can either allow the complaint to be proceeded with, which implies that the complaint is admitted or reject the same. Similar power is vested with the State Commission under Section 18 and the National Commission under Section 22. If the concerned forum is prima facie satisfied that the complainant is a 'consumer' as defined in Section 2(d) and there is a 'defect', as defined in Section 2(f) in relation to any goods or there is 'deficiency in service' as defined in Section 2(g) read with Section 2(o) and the complaint has been filed within the prescribed period of limitation then it can direct that the complaint may be proceeded with. On the other hand, if the concerned forum is satisfied that the complaint does not disclose any grievance which can be redressed under the Act then it can reject the complaint at the threshold after recording reasons for doing so. Section 24A(1) contains a negative legislative mandate against admission of a complaint which has been filed after 2 years from the date of accrual of cause of action. In other words, the consumer forums do not have the jurisdiction to entertain a complaint if the same is not filed within 2 years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. This power is required to be exercised after giving opportunity of hearing to the complainant, who can seek condonation of delay under Section 24A(2) by showing that there was sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the period prescribed under Section 24A(1). If the complaint is per se barred by time and the complainant does not seek condonation of delay under Section 24A(2), the consumer forums will have no option but to dismiss the same……………..

   15. …………Of course, if the complaint is barred by time, the consumer forum is bound to dismiss the same unless the consumer makes out a case for condonation of delay under Section 24A(2).”

8.      Therefore, even if this Commission wants to condone the delay in filing the complaint before the District Forum, it is seen that no application has been filed for condoning the delay before the District Forum.  Thus, it is clear that the orders of the fora below are legally correct and therefore, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order dated 21.01.2019 passed by the State Commission in FA 1072 of 2018 which calls for any interference from this Commission.  Consequently, the revision petition No.2615 of 2019 is dismissed in limine.