BEEJ EVAM KRISHI VIKAS NIGAM Vs. PRADEEP KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two revision petitions challenging the order passed by the State Commission on 23.01.2014, whereby the said Commission disposed of the appeal filed by the petitioner Company, with a slight modification of the order passed by the District forum on 23.11.2012. By the said order the District Forum had directed opposite parties, National Seeds Corporation and the petitioner, Seed and Agriculture Development Nigam Ltd. to pay to the complainant an amount equal to the value of 230.40 quintal of Dhan in R.P. No. 3656/2014 and an amount equal to the value of 48 quintals of Dhan in R.P. No. 3657/2014. They were also directed to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint. It was further directed that the amount in question will be first paid by the petitioner/opposite party no. 4 and in case it is not paid by the said opposite party, it will be paid by National Seeds Corporation. The State Commission modified the aforesaid order to the extent that National Seeds Corporation as well as the petitioner were held equally liable to compensate the complainants.

(2.) These revision petitions have been filed on 24.09.2014, though the impugned order came to be passed by the State Commission on 23.01.2014 and a copy of the said order was prepared on 25.01.2014 and received by the petitioner on 28.01.2014. The prescribed period of limitation for filing the revision petition before this Commission being three months, computing from 28.01.2014 when the copy of the order was admittedly received by the petitioner, there is delay of 140 days i.e. more than 41/2 months in filing the revision petition. The petitioner, therefore, has filed I.A. No. 6679/2014 and I.A. No. 6680/2014, seeking condonation of the said delay. The aforesaid applications to the extent be seen to explain the delay in filing the revision petition reads as under:-

(3.) When these revision petitions came up for hearing on 11.12.2014, the learned counsel for the petitioner took an adjournment to file a better application explaining the delay in filing the revision petitions. The petitioner has thereafter filed an affidavit of Deputy Manager of a Branch Office, seeking to explain the said delay. The aforesaid affidavit to the extent it is relevant reads as under:-