JUSTICE R.C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER
ICI India Limited, (Now known as Akzo Nobel India Ltd.), (opposite party No.2 in the complaint before the District Forum) has filed these petitions against the orders passed by the Punjab State Commission, Chandigarh (for short the State Commission). Revision Petition No. 3253 of 2011 has been filed against the order dated 12.01.2011 passed by the State Commission in First Appeal Nos. 1116 of 2005 while the Revision Petition No. 3254 of 2011 has been filed against the Order dated 12.07.2011 passed in Miscellaneous Application No. 1464, 1465, 1466 and 1467 of 2011.
2. By the earlier order dated 12.01.2011, the State Commission had partly allowed the appeal filed by Dr. Sunil Chawla complainant against the order dated 07.06.2005 passed by the District Forum, Amritsar, thereby dismissing the complaint filed by the above named complainant seeking compensation from the petitioner herein and Gokal Chand and Co. (opposite party No.1), supplier of the paint alleging that the paint so supplied was of poor, substandard and inferior quality. The State Commission partly allowed the appeal with a direction to the petitioner and the supplier of the paint to pay lump sum compensation of
Rs. 20,000/- including the cost of the proceedings. By the subsequent order dated 12.07.2011, the State Commission dismissed the Miscellaneous Applications moved by the petitioner herein praying for setting aside the order dated 12.01.2011 as the said order was passed in their absence. The State Commission dismissed the said application holding that it had no power to review or recall its order.
3. Along with the present petitions, applications for condonation of delay of 259 days, have been filed. Before we advert to the merits of the petitions, we must consider these applications for condonation of delay in filing the revision petitions. In para-4 of the application, it is mentioned that the petitioner came to know about the passing of the impugned order dated 12.01.2011 only upon receipt of a notice in execution fixed for 18.4.2011 and thereafter he filed application for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 12.01.2011 passed by the State Commission.
4. We have heard Mr. Aditya Narain, Advocate learned counsel for the petitioner and have considered his submissions made in support of the application. In our view, the reason shown by the petitioner for delay is not at all tenable because firstly the free certified copy of the impugned order dated 12.01.2011 must have been delivered to the petitioner within a reasonable time and in any case, the dealer / supplier of the paint was duly represented in the appeal before the State Commission. Therefore, to say that the petitioner acquired knowledge of the passing of the order only in April, 2011 cannot be believed. We may note that the petitioner should have known that the State Commission has no power to review or recall its orders and this power is only vested in the National Commission by virtue of Section 22 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It would appear that the petitioner was not well advised to move the application for setting aside the ex-parte order or the order dated 12.01.2011. The law on the question as to when a Court or Tribunal must exercise its judicial discretion to condone the delay has been laid down by the Honble Supreme Court and various High Courts and by this Commission in a number of decisions and we do not wish to burden this opinion by referring to them. Of course, the Court or Tribunal must adopt a liberal approach in exercising its discretion but at the same time, we must not forget that the statutory limitation provided by Special Statute like this Consumer Protection Act, 1986 must be duly regarded and undue delays in filing the proceedings should not be condoned. It has been so held by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Anshul Aggarwal Versus New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (IV) 2011 CPJ 63.
5. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the view that no sufficient cause has been shown on record entitling the petitioner for condonation of this huge delay in filing the revision petitions. The Revision Petitions are therefore, liable to be dismissed on this sole ground.
6. Even after holding so, we have considered the merits of the matter. The counsel would submit that the order passed by the State Commission is not passed on correct and proper appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence and material brought on record inasmuch as no expert was examined to establish that the paint manufactured by the petitioner was in fact defective or of inferior quality in any manner. We must reject this contention as devoid of any merits whatsoever because the State Commission, after a thorough examination of the matter and the documentary evidence brought on record, particularly the report of the representative of the petitioner itself and the cogent evidence led on behalf of the complainant has come to the finding that the paint manufactured by the petitioner and supplied by opposite party No.1 was of poor, substandard and of inferior quality by observing as under:
œ20. So far as the cracking, chipping and peeling of the paint is concerned, the case is clearly proved by the appellant not only by his own affidavit but also of the affidavit of his father Dr. Baldev Raj Chawla Ex-C-3. The appellant has also filed the affidavit of Kamaljeet Singh, Architect Ex.C-2 inw hich it is clearly deposed that the paint sold by respondent No.1 to Dr. Baldev Raj Chawla was of spurious and sub-standard quality and it had started cracking, chipping and peeling off immediately after it was got painted. The appellant has also placed on the file the publicity pamphlets which were got printed, published and circulated by respondent No.2 inciting the people to purchase this paint manufactured by respondent No.2. He has also produced on the file the photographs Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-10 which clearly reveal that the paint had peeled off from various places from the external walls of the house of the appellant.
21. As discussed above, the appellant had purchased a number of items from the shop of respondent No.1 in the process of constructing his house. The bills, as discussed above, have been proved not only by the appellant but also by respondent No.1 The appellant had not raised any dispute with regard to the other items purchased by Dr. Baldev Raj Chawla from the shop of respondent No.1. If the complaint of the appellant disputing the quality of paint was false, then the appellant could have made the false complaints against respondent No.1 regarding the other items also, purchased by the appellant from the shop of respondent No.1. This is a very assuring factor that the complaint regarding the quality of paint was not false.
22. Therefore, no more expert evidence was required when the photographs have been placed on the file and when the architect has been examined by the appellant by way of affidavit and when the complaint only of one item has been filed while a number of items were purchased by the appellant from the shop of respondent No.1 Therefore, it is clearly proved that the quality of the paint purchased by Dr. Baldev Raj Chawla from the shop of respondent No.1 was poor, sub-standard and of inferior quality.
25. It may be that some part of the paint had cracked or it started chipping and peeling off but it was not immediately that the cause of action started. The appellant had to wait if the general tendency of the paint was like that and that is why he waited for some time and lodged the complaint with the owner / partner of respondent No.1 thereafter. The premises were inspected by the representative of the manufacturers somewhere in September, 2001, who had also found that the paint had peeled off and there was manufacturing defect in the paint. The owner / partner of respondent No.1 had flatly refused to compensate the appellant in the first week of September 2003 and accordingly the appellant filed the complaint in the District Forum on 24.09.2003 i.e. within a period of two years from the date of refusal and from the date of inspection by the representative of respondent No.2.?
7. In our view, the above observations and findings recorded by the State Commission are based on correct and proper analysis and appreciation of the evidence and material brought on record. The findings are justified and suffer from no illegality, material irregularity, much less any jurisdictional error, which calls for interference by this Commission.
8. The Revision Petitions are accordingly dismissed on both the counts of limitation as well as on the merits.