1. This First Appeal, under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), has been filed by Reliance Communications Ltd., its different functionaries being Opposite Parties No. 1, 2 and 3 in the Complaint under the Act, against the order dated 26.02.2016, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Puducherry (for short “the State Commission”), in Consumer Complaint No. 2 of 2015. By the impugned order, while holding that the services provided by the Appellant herein to the Respondent/Complainant were not adequate/appropriate and amounted to deficiency in service on its part, the State Commission has allowed the Appeal and directed the Appellant to pay to the Complainant a sum of ₹1,00,000/- as compensation within two months from the said date, with a default stipulation of payment of interest @ 9% p.a. on the said amount if the said amount is not paid within the time granted. 2. Facts, leading to the filing of the Complaint, in brief are: Against a data card provided by the Appellant, the Complainant was availing its broadband services since 2013 at the monthly rent of ₹449.44, including taxes. Since from the last week of January, 2014, he was unable to browse the internet, he took up the matter with the officials/technicians of the Appellant many times. However, the services did not improve. As asked by the Chief Technician/Software Engineer, twice he took his computer as well as data card to them. Even then the problem was not solved. The Complainant requested the Appellant to take back the data card and pay the remaining amount, after deducting the bill amount, to which no heed was paid by it and instead the Appellant’s functionaries, while insisting for payment of the dues, threatened him to take up the matter in the Court of law. Pursuant to some correspondence/email by the Complainant, the Appellant firstly issued him a letter dated 05.06.2014, asking for payment of dues of ₹1,216/-, as the last and final bill, and then a legal notice in the matter. Since the Complainant was not getting proper services from the Appellant and the problem was not rectified for two months, the Complainant switched over to another service provider and filed the afore-noted Complaint before the State Commission, praying for a direction to the Appellant to pay to him a compensation of ₹25,00,000/- for the deficiency in service, mental sufferings, humiliation etc. 3. The aggrieved Appellant is before us in the present Appeal. 4. It is pointed out by the office that the Appeal is barred by limitation, inasmuch as there is a delay of 139 days in filing the same. An application, praying for condonation of the said delay, has been filed along with the Appeal. In paragraphs 3 to 7 of the Application, the Appellant has furnished the following explanation: “3. On 30.04.2016, it was informed by the Counsel of the Appellant that an exparte order was passed by the learned State Commission on 26.02.2016 and accordingly, handed over the certified copy of the order dated 07.03.2016. 4. On 31.05.2016, the Appellant regional office collate the documents pertaining to the complaint filed by the Respondent and handed over to the Counsel for drafting the Appeal. 5. On 2.06.2016, the documents were received by the Counsel for the appellant. On 30.06.2016, the draft appeal was circulated with certain clarification and inputs on 30.06.2016. 6. On 5.07.2016, the appeal was finalized by the appellant. However, certain clarification with regard to network connectivity which had bearing on the adjudication of the dispute, were sought from the Regional Office, Pondicherry. 7. On 15.07.2016, the appeal was sent to the concerned department for verifying the facts and for signing the vakalatnama/affidavits and other formalities. On receipt of the affidavit and vakalatnama on 6.08.2016, the appeal was finalized for the filing. Hence the present appeal.” 5. In our view, the explanation furnished by the Appellant is wholly unsatisfactory. Admittedly, on 07.03.2016 the certified copy of the impugned order was delivered to Counsel for the Appellant. However, it is pleaded that it was only on 30.04.2016, i.e. after more than seven weeks, that the Counsel informed the Appellant about the impugned order. Nothing has been placed on record to show whether any explanation was sought from the Counsel for allegedly keeping the impugned order with him all this while. Thereafter, the Appellant itself took one month in collecting/handing over the necessary documents to its Counsel, who also took further one month in seeking certain clarifications in the matter and drafting the Appeal. Indubitably, on 05.07.2016, the Appeal was finalized, yet the Appellant/its Counsel took more than a month in completing other formalities and then filing the Appeal. The cumulative effect of the slack exercise undertaken by the Appellant/its Counsel in pursuing the matter is that the Appeal, which was required to be filed within 30 days as per Section 19 of the Act, has been filed with an inordinate delay of 139 days, over and above the said period. Bearing in mind the limited statutory period and the fact that the Appeal was already barred by limitation, if not earlier, at least on finalization of the Appeal, on 05.07.2016, the Appellant was expected to ensure that the same was filed without any further delay but that was to be. 6. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that apart from the fact that the application is not bonafide, the Appellant has failed to make out a “sufficient cause” for condonation of inordinate delay in filing the Appeal. Accordingly, we decline to condone an inordinate delay of 139 days in filing of the present Appeal, more so when the amount of compensation of ₹1,00,000/-, as awarded by the State Commission, cannot be said to be disproportionate to the afore-noted harassment and mental agony undergone by the Complainant at the hands of the Appellant. 8. Consequently, the Appeal is dismissed on the short ground of limitation. |
