1. REVISION Petition No. 3060 of 2013 has been filed by the petitioner under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ''Act '') against the impugned order dated 27.2.2013, passed by Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (short, "State Commission ") in First Appeal No.219 of 2010.
2. THE respondent/complainant purchased a valid ticket through internet on 28.4.05 for traveling to Dubai via Abu Dhabi for 22.5.2005 and return ticket for 26.5.2005. The ticket was purchased through internet as the same was for low fare. The flight in question only goes to Dubai. The respondent had no option but to arrange for pick up from Abu Dhabi and back by road and paid 100 per cent transfer fare amount of Rs.17,000/ -. Extra charges were paid for entering Abu Dhabi. The visa to Dubai is given only with the hotel confirmation. Respondent received a call from petitioner/opposite party on 19.5.05 at about 3 P.M. informing that the flight to Abu Dhabi on 22.5.2005, 24.5.2005 and 26.5.2005 have been cancelled on account of some technical snag. The respondent visited to the office of the petitioner and met Ms. Rita Chawla who declared that they were refunding the ticket amount without any cancellation charges and reasons for technical snag were that there was no air craft available on the said base. The complainant requested to be accommodated in alternate seats in Air India but Ms. Rita Chawla refused to accommodate the respondent as well as other group passengers and behaved in a very rude manner. The respondent was forced to purchase tickets of Air India amounting to Rs.16,337/ - as against each ticket which was costing Rs.9,150/ -. The respondent could travel to Dubai after purchasing ticket on higher fare. Respondent has claimed refund of visa charges refund of 85 US dollars which equal to Rs.3,785/ - and difference amount of ticket price Rs.7,237/ -, visa extension charges of Rs.17,000/ - along with other compensation.
Petitioner pleaded that the respondent was refunded the entire ticket amount on account of cancellation of flight. The air ticket is non -transferable and, therefore, no alternate seats could be given to the respondent. The respondent was informed in advance about cancellation of flight so that he could make alternative arrangements. Petitioner denied any deficiency in service.
3. DISTRICT Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, New Delhi (For short, "District Forum ") passed the following order ;
1. OP will refund the difference amount of ticket price i.e. Rs.7,237/ - to the complainant. Complainant had to obtain advance visa for which 85 US dollars of which equated amount spent were totaling to Rs.3,785/ - and Visa Extension charges of Rs.17,000/ - to the complainant. OP will therefore, pay Rs.28,022/ - to the complainant towards expenses directly incurred by the complainant for no fault of his. 2. On account of mental agony, harassment and for deficiency in service, OP will pay Rs.50,000/ - towards compensation 3. OP will pay Rs.10,000/ - towards cost of litigation to the complainant. "
4. AGGRIEVED by the order of the District Forum, petitioner/opposite party has filed an appeal before the State Commission, which vide its order dated 27.2.2013 dismissed the same.
Hence, the revision petition.
5. ALONG with present petition, petitioner has filed an application for condonation of delay of 43 days. The reasons given for the delay are as follows ;
"That the certified copy of the impugned judgment dated 27.2.2013 was received by the petitioner on 15.4.2013 and the statutory period of limitation of 90 days for preferring revision petition expired on 14.7.2013. Consequently, there is a short inadvertent delay of ... ..... days in filing of the instant petition.
6. THAT the petitioner being a state agency has to comply with a number of official formalities and technicalities and had to go through numerous stages before filing instant revision petition.
That the delay in filing of the present petition is due to procedural formalities common to Government Departments, of seeking approvals at every stage and there has been no lack of diligence on part of the petiiotner in pursuing the matter.
7. THAT the petitioner respectfully submits that the said delay is neither willful nor due to any inaction but was purely due to administrative reasons as set out above and this is an appropriate case for condoning the delay.
8. THAT it is respectfully submitted that the petitioner has a very good case on merits and if awarded an opportunity to argue the matter on merits, it has every likelihood of succeeding before this Hon ''ble Commission.
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record of the case.
9. THE reasons given for the delay in the application are general, vague and not specified. The only argument given by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the petitioner being a state agency takes time to comply with a number of official formalities and technicalities and procedural formalities common to Government departments. These too have not been specified. The petitioners have failed to explain the day to day reasons for the delay of 43 days and also failed to give sufficient cause to condone the delay.
10. LEARNED counsel for petitioner has relied upon a judgment in Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Mg. Commit. of Raghunathpur Nafar ACAD and Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos.8183 -8184 of 2013). He draws our attention to para 15 of this judgment. He could not, however, confirm whether the facts of the instant cited case were comparable to the present case.
Apex Court in case Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV(2011) CPJ 63(SC) has observed ;
"It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the consumer foras ".
11. IN Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, it has been observed;
"It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by S.5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the enquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant. "
12. UNDER these circumstances, no sufficient cause is made out for condoning the delay of 43 days in filing the present petition. Accordingly, application for condonation of delay is not maintainable. Consequently, the present revision petition being barred by limitation is hereby dismissed with cost of Rs.20,000/ - (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only).
Cost of Rs.10,000/ - to be paid by way of demand draft in the name of the respondent and remaining cost of Rs.10,000/ - to be deposited by way of demand draft in the name of ''Consumer Legal Aid Account '' of this Commission, within four weeks from today.
13. IN case, petitioner fails to deposit the said cost within the prescribed period, then it shall also be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a., till realization.
14. LIST on 22.11.2013 for compliance.
