GADE LAKSHMANA RAO Vs. MAHALAKSHMI MOTORS PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. V. Gourishankar Rao, the learned Counsel for the petitioner/complainant. The respondents were served. No representation on behalf of the respondents, even though Mr. M. R. Harsha filed counters purporting to appear for them, he has not filed proper vakalath and he is also not present today. We find that the reasons given for condoning the the delay in the affidavit in support of the application do not make out a sufficient cause. The petitioner/appellant states in his affidavit as follows: "i further submit that I being retired Chief Engineer (Irrigation Department, Government of A. P.), is associated with several professional and social organisations. I am the Council Member of Institution of Engineers (India) Calcutta, I am the Chairman of Rural Development Forum IEI), Southern Regional Centre, Hyderabad, I am Past Chairman of Institution of Engineers (India), A. P. State Centre, Hyderabad, I am the Vice Chairman of National Institute of Amateur Radio, Hyderabad, I am the Member of Board of Governors, Engineers Staff College of India, Hyderabad, Planning Board, Sister Nivedita College of Professional Studies, Hyderabad and I am the Director of Master Consultancy and Productivity Pvt. Ltd. , Hyderabad. Because of my very frequent travelling of all over the country I could not immediately visit my Counsel for drafting and filing the appeal within the period of limitation. I have been advised that I am having fair chances of success in the appeal, supported by the Decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and on various other decisions rendered by different State Commissions, ignoring which the District Forum dismissed my complaint. The delay in filing the appeal is neither intentional nor wilful. If the delay is not condoned I will be put to irreparable loss". Virtually what he states is that he was a very busy man, he was having so many other avocations and, therefore, he could not meet his Advocate in time and he could meet him only when he chose to find time and consequently the delay should be condoned. If this is accepted then any and every one can say because they are busy with other work they could not present the appeal within the time allowed. The petitioner can seek condonation of delay only by making out that he was diligent in pursuing the matter and in spite of all his efforts, there was delay. In the circumstances, we do not find any sufficient cause made out on the facts stated by the petitioner. The application for condoning the delay is, therefore, dismissed and consequently the appeal is rejected.

(2.) Going through the order of the District Forum, we find that it is vitiated by illegalities and material irregularities and that, therefore, it has to be set aside the exercise of our revisional jurisdiction under Sec.17 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ('the Act' for short ). The question raised by the petitioner, who was the complainant before the District Forum, was that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties inasmuch as his seniority was deliberately flouted, and those placed after him were favoured and wrongly given priority over him and delivered the car before the price hike took place, and that if his seniority was not ignored and he was given the priority due to him, a car should have been allotted and offered to him long before the price of the cars was hiked. In Om Prakash V/s. Assistant Engineer, Haryana Agro Industries Corporation Limited, 1994 3 SCC 504, the Supreme Court very comprehensively discussed a similar question. In that case there was delayed supply of a tractor booked by the complainant which he was to receive first according to the priority list of booking and yet those below the complainant were supplied tractors. In the mean time there was rise in the price of the tractor and ultimately when the tractor was supplied to the complainant after 9 months on 21.9.1991, he had to pay about Rs.40,700/- more for no fault of his and due to the conduct and the practice adopted by the supplier. The Supreme Court held that if a trader intentionally delayed the delivery of any goods to the consumer, because of which the consumer suffered, it would amount to an unfair method or unfair trade practice adopted by the trader and that there should not be any difficulty in holding that because of that unfair trade practice adopted by the supplier the consumer suffered a loss and damage within the meaning of Sec.2 (1) (c) (i) of the Act and that he could file a complaint in respect of the same. See also Maruti Udyog Ltd. V/s. Sudhir Gautam, 1998 1 CPJ 620.

(3.) In his letter dated 1.4.1987 (copy marked as Ex. All) addressed by the complainant to the opposite parties, he stated as follows: "sri Prasad, one of your staff members, was kind enough to verify the registers and to inform me that "my name was missed" while sending the communications regarding delivery of the vehicles and gave me a "duplicate" which incidentally did not bear any reference number etc. Further it is observed from your registers of registered letters that the customers having allotment numbers beyond 4100 were also informed about the delivery of their vehicles in February, 1987 itself by registered post. For example the communication to allotment No.4149 was sent on 26.2.1987 itself while my number which is 4038 was not taken care of. Sri Prasad was not kind enough to divulge any further information about either the reasons for not following the Serial numbers and missing my numbers or the reference number in which the original communication was meant to be sent to me (for the duplicate letter issued to the on 9.3.1987 ). When I expressed my willingness to pay the amount of Rs.62,165.20 plus other charges mentioned in the letter on 9.3.1987 itself Sri Prasad told me that they have instructions from their head office not to accept any deposits till 1.4.1987".