SUNIL AGARWAL Vs. ARVIND MALIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed by the OP, petitioner herein, against the order dated 10.2.2009 passed by the Delhi State Commission reversing the earlier order dated 28.10.2006 of the District Forum allowing the consumer complaint of the complainant, respondent herein. Even though the impugned order was passed on 10.2.2009, it is not in dispute that the Counsel of the petitioner received free copy of this order on 6.5.2009 from the State Commission. In spite of this, the present revision petition has been filed after a gap of about 19 months. The Registry, therefore, has reported a delay of 525 days in filing the present revision petition. We have perused the application filed by the petitioner for condonation of the delay. The only ground which the petitioner has given in his application is his feeling unwell owing to depression throughout this period. Although the petitioner has filed copies of the prescription of the doctor, taking into consideration the long period of delay vis-a-vis the nature of his ailment, we are convinced that the reason given for the delay is neither adequate nor convincing so as to condone this inordinate delay in filing the revision petition and hence the revision petition can be dismissed on this ground alone. However, we have gone through the merits of the case as well.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner is a wholesale cement dealer. The respondent/complainant in good faith had paid sum of Rs. 1,75,000 on 2.5.1995 for arranging supply of cement and other construction material for the construction of his premises. On the petitioner showing his inability to supply the necessary material, he issued a cheque of Rs. 1,00,000 by way of refund of the amount to the respondent on 2.6.1997 drawn on Vijaya Bank, Samaypur, Delhi. This cheque was dishonoured on presentation due to insufficient funds. In order to meet his liability, the petitioner again issued a cheque of Rs. 75,000 to the respondent drawn of J&K Bank, Azadpur but this cheque was also dishonoured by the concerned bank. The grievance of the respondent was that the cheques issued by the petitioner were repeatedly dishonoured by the concerned bank on account of insufficient funds and that by not supplying the goods or by not refunding the amount the petitioner caused him mental agony and harassment and had also deprived him of his large amount. The complainant/respondent, therefore, knocked the doors of the consumer forum by filing a complaint praying for direction to the petitioner/opposite party to refund the sum of Rs. 1,75,000 along with interest and compensation of Rs. 50,000 for causing him mental agony and harassment. On appreciation of the issues raised and the evidence adduced, the District Forum directed the OP to refund the amount of Rs. 1,75,000 together with interest @ 12% p.a. for its failure to supply the material or to refund the amount given to him in advance. Even though it was an ex parte order, the OP had already filed written statement and an affidavit in support of his contentions which were considered by the District Forum while passing the order. The OP filed an appeal before the State Commission against the order of the District Forum but the same was dismissed by the State Commission and hence the present revision petition challenging the same.

(3.) We have perused the record and heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. The version of the petitioner is that he has not received the sum of Rs. 1,75,000 from the respondent for supply of cement and other building material but he has admitted that he had issued the two cheques to the respondent. It is his contention that these cheques were issued to the respondent by way of personal loan but on second thought he had decided not to advance the loan to the respondent and for that reason, the cheques issued by him were not honoured. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also repeated the pleas regarding absence of any invoice, bill or purchase order along with other contentions raised before the Fora below. Perusal of the order of the District Forum and the State Commission shows that these contentions had been fully considered by the Fora below. The judgments given by this Commission in the case of Reliance Industries Ltd. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 1998 1 CPJ 13 and the ruling of the Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Munimahesh Patel, 2006 7 SCC 655, was relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner did not get attracted to the present case considering its peculiar facts. Considering the entirety of the facts and circumstances of this case, we do not find any basis on which we could interfere with the concurrent findings of the Fora below while exercising the revisional jurisdiction. In our considered view, there is no substance in the revision petition and the same is liable for dismissal at the threshold. The revision petition is dismissed accordingly but with no order as to costs.