MR.VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER
Haryana Agro Industries Corporation India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to HAIC) has filed this revision petition against the order of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in First Appeal No.12 of 2007. Appellant/HAIC had challenged the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat, which had awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,10,000/- to the Complainant/present respondent. The impugned order also considered appeal no.2090 of 2006 filed by the complainant, seeking enhancement of the awarded compensation. The State Commission dismissed both the appeals, thereby confirming the order of the District Forum.
2. We have carefully perused the records of the case and have heard Mr. Satinder Singh Gulati, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner/HAIC.
3. HAIC has filed this revision petition with delay of 261 days. A perusal of the application seeking condonation of this delay shows that no attempt has been made to offer a reasonable explanation for this huge delay, when the law provides only 90 days for filing the revision petition. The only explanation offered is that:-
'It is submitted that some delay has occurred in filing of the present Revision Petition, since, the competent authority, who had to take decision in regard to filing of present revision petition was transferred several times. Therefore, the decision for filing of present Revision Petition could not be taken in time and consequently the delay has occurred.'
We do not see how transfer of the concerned officer/competent authority can be accepted as the sole justification for delay. It is not the case of the revision petitioner that no in-charge arrangement existed during the period of the absence of the regular incumbent of the relevant post. Therefore, in our view the explanation offered for the delay is not acceptable.
4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner also argued that delay should be condoned on another ground viz. that the petitioner has a strong arguable case. In this behalf he sought to rely upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Union of India Vs. Giani, (2011) 11 SCC 480. In this matter, Hon’ble Apex Court addressed the question whether Section 23 (1-A) of the amended Land Acquisition Act, which came into effect on 30.4.1982 would be applicable to a case where the land acquisition proceedings had concluded on 9.7.1980, with the passing of the award by the District Collector. It was in this background, that the delay in filing the civil appeals was condoned by the Apex Court with the observation:-
'2. Having examined the averments made in the applications for condonation of delay in filing all the appeals and after hearings the learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the applications for condonation of delay in preferring the appeals must be allowed as the statements in the applications for condonation of delay, in our view, do constitute sufficient cause in not preferring the appeals within the period of limitation. We, therefore, condone delay in all the appeals. We have taken such a view in this matter as we feel that there is a strong arguable case on behalf of the appellants and, therefore, it is felt necessary that the Court should decide the matter on merit by giving the expression 'sufficient cause' a pragmatic justice-oriented approach.'
5. The facts in the revision petition before us stand on a very different footings. Here, the sole issue agitated is whether there was any justification for the award of compensation of Rs.2.25 lakhs by the District Forum and for confirmation of the award by the State Commission. Therefore in our view, the revision petition cannot place any reliance on the decision cited by the counsel.
6. Coming to the merits of the case, we find it necessary to observe that in paragraph 6 the complaint petition itself had given out item wise details of the costs of Rs.80,000/- claimed by the Complainant before the District Forum. In para 11 loss of income from the crop was claimed to be Rs.2,25,000/-. In para 13 total compensation of Rs.4,05,000/- was claimed by the Complainant. The OP/HAIC chose to dismiss it by a cryptic reply in the written response before the District Forum. Para 7 thereof read:-
'That para no 7 of the compliant is totally incorrect and denied. Neither the amount mentioned in this para was ever spent not the loss stated therein is caused to the complainant, and in case any loss is caused to the complainant the same was caused due to his own fault.'
7. Per conta, the District Forum has given reasonable justification for the award of total compensation of Rs.2.25,000/- to the respondent/Complainant. The amount ha
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
s been considered adequate by the State Commission and, for that reason, the appeal of the Complainant for its enhancement has been rejected. 8. In the above background, we hold that the impugned order is based on correct appreciation of evidence on record. The revision petitioner has completely failed to make out a case for intervention of this Commission in exercise of power under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The revision petition is consequently dismissed for want of merit. No orders as to costs.