ORDER
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (President)
1.
Opposite Party is the petitioner in the revision petition and appellant in
the appeal. Revision petition arises out of the proceedings under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act initiated by the respondent-complainant. These proceedings under Section 25 and 27 were initiated as the petitioner failed to comply with the order dated 18.11.96 of the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission whereby complaint of the petitioner was allowed. Respondent had complained about deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner in not repairing his new Montana Car and then not delivering the same for a period of 4 years. Respondent had purchased the Montana car on 22.3.98 from the petitioner. On 2.7.88 while the car was being taken for second free service its differential cage had broken and the car had to be towed to the workshop. While the petitioner contended that the differential cage had broken on account of accident, the respondent’s case was that it was on account of technical fault. Petitioner wanted the respondent to have insurance claim. But the surveyor appointed by the Insurance Company was of the view that it was not because of accident and differential cage had broken on account of manufacturing defect. However, petitioner raised a bill of Rs. 16,000/- which the respondent refused to pay as according to him damage occurred during the warranty period.
2.
On 4.4.91 respondent filed complaint before the State Commission.
During the pendency of the complaint car was delivered to the respondent on 7.5.92
without charging any amount. Respondent alleged gross deficiency in service. He said he
was a medical practitioner and suffered his profession on account of being deprived of the
car for all this period. State Commission allowed the complaint and rejected various
preliminary objections raised by the petitioner-opposite party. State Commission ordered
that petitioner shall pay Rs. 30,000/- as compensation with interest @ 18% per annum
from 2.7.88 to 7.5.92. State Commission also directed further interest at this very rate
on the amount of Rs. 82,000/- being price of the car for the same period. A sum of
Rs. 3,000/- was awarded as costs.
3.
Petitioner did not file any appeal against this order. When the revision
petition was taken up it was pointed out to the counsel for the petitioner that since the
order of the State Commission had become final it had to be complied. There upon this
appeal was filed on 2.4.2002. Along with this, an application for condonation of delay
was also filed. It was submitted that copy of the order of the State Commission was not
received by the petitioner, therefore, it could not file appeal. However, record shows that
the petitioner had been contesting the complaint and was aware of the order of the State
Commission. In any case it became aware of the order on 17.4.97 when the State
Commission passed order under Section 27 of the Act and against that order petitioner
filed revision petition before this Commission on 28.4.97. Along with the grounds of
appeal, certified copy of the order dated 18.11.96 of the State Commission was filed
which shows that petitioner applied for copy of the order on 18.10.2001 and it was
ready on 31.10.2001. However, delivery was taken on 21.11.2001. Index of the
grounds of appeal shows that the appeal was prepared on 3.12.2001 and it came be to
filed on 2.4.2002. It, therefore, surprise us as to how petitioner/appellant could allege
that it had no knowledge of the order of the State Commission on the complaint filed by
the respondent.
4. We find no ground whatsoever to condone the delay in filing appeal. In
fact it appears that he petitioner has come up with a make up story of not having
received the copy of the order of the State Commission to get the delay condoned.
Otherwise, circumstances point to the fact that appellant was negligent in filing the appeal.
We find no sufficient grounds made in the application for condonation of delay and it is
dismissed, so is the appeal.
5.
Coming to the revision petition when the impugned order had become final
there cannot be any question to challenge the same in proceedings under Section 27 of
the Act. When the revision petition came up before us for the first time on 29.4.1997
we ordered stay of imprisonment on depositing a sum of Rs. 50,000/- within three weeks
from date of the order. This amount shall be payable to the respondent. The revision
petition is dismissed. We however, grant four weeks time to comply with the order
dated 18.11.96 of the State Commission. Respondent complainant shall be entitled to
cost both in revision and appeal which we assess at Rs. 2500/-.