1.       This set of 11 Revision Petitions, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), by M/s PHI Seeds Pvt. Ltd., Opposite Party No.1 in the Complaints under the Act, is directed against a common order, dated 05.06.2014, passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Bengaluru (for short “the State Commission”) in Appeals No. 2081 to 2091 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 Cases No. CC/106/2007 to CC/116/2007, preferred by the Respondents/Complainants, the State Commission has dismissed the aforesaid Appeals, preferred by the Opposite Parties, including the Petitioner herein, and the cross Appeals, preferred by the Complainants for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the District Forum.  All the said Appeals had been preferred by both the parties against a common order dated 31.03.2010, vide which, while partly allowing the Complaints, preferred by the Complainants, the District Forum had directed the Opposite Parties, i.e. the Petitioner, a Manufacturer of Hybrid Rice seeds, and its Dealer(s), to jointly and severally pay to the Complainants a sum, ranging between ₹25,600/- and ₹2,72,000/-, with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the Complaints till realization, besides compensation between ₹10,000/- and ₹20,000/- and litigation costs, quantified at ₹2,000/- each.    

2.       Since the issue involved in all the Complaints is the same and the District Forum and the State Commission have disposed of the Complaints/Appeals by their respective common orders, these Revision Petitions are also being disposed of by this common order. 

3.       The Complaints came to be filed under the following circumstances:

3.1     In November/December, 2006, the Complainants had purchased different numbers of Hybrid Rice seed bags, 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 Complainants had taken all precautionary measures for growing the paddy crop by making huge investment towards fertilizers, pesticides, weed removal etc. but they 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 fields but they did not turn up and the paddy crop was about to ruin completely.  The Complainants harvested the crop and got yield of 10 to 12 quintals per acre of poor quality, in place of assured yield of 32 quintals per acre by the Opposite Parties.  Since the paddy crop was of inferior quality, the said bags were sold at a lesser price.  The Complainants requested the Seeds Inspector-cum-Assistant Director of Agriculture concerned for inspection of their fields but in vain.     

3.2     In the aforesaid background, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties in selling defective seeds, resulting in certain monetary loss to the Complainants, the afore-noted Complaints came to be filed before the District Forum.  The Complainants had prayed for a direction to the Opposite Parties for making good the loss with interest @ 18% p.a., along with compensation ranging between ₹25,000/- and ₹1,00,000/- for the mental agony suffered by them.  

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

5.       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. 

6.       Hence, the present Revision Petitions.  

7.       It is pointed out by the Office that these Revision Petitions are barred by limitation, inasmuch as there is a delay of 888 days in filing the same.  Identical Applications, seeking for condonation of the said delay, have been filed along with the Revision Petitions.  In paragraphs – 3 & 4 of the said Applications, 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.”

8.       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 Petitions deserve to be dismissed on the ground of limitation.    

9.       At the outset, it may be noted that against the very same impugned order, the Petitioner had earlier filed Revision Petition No. 726 of 2017.  Like the present belated Revision Petitions, the said Revision Petition, which involved the same issue and, more or less, the same facts, had been filed by the Petitioner with an inordinate delay of 874 days. On perusal of the aforesaid explanation furnished by the Petitioner in support of the present Revision Petitions, we find that in respect of the delay in filing earlier Revision Petition, the Petitioner had furnished verbatim same explanation.  Vide our order dated 11.04.2017, the said Revision Petition was dismissed in limine on the short ground of limitation, observing thus: 

“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.     Following the said order, the present Revision Petitions, which have been filed with an inordinate delay of 888 days, are also liable to be dismissed in limine on the short ground of limitation.  Ordered accordingly.