Delhi

North East

CC/47/2020

Balwan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Delhi Jal Board - Opp.Party(s)

21 Oct 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 47/2020

 

In the matter of:

 

	ShriBalwan Singh S/o Late ShriPatram Singh R/o 323-A, Pocket-E, GTB Enclave NandNagri Delhi-110093	Complainant
	Versus
	Delhi Jal Board Zonal Revenue Officer N/E 1st 2142 JantaFlats,GTB Enclave, NandNagri, Delhi-110093	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:       JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION      :

09.10.2020 21.10.2020 21.10.2020

 

Mr. Arun Kumar Arya, President(Addl. Charge)

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

ORDER

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

1. Arguments heard on admission addressed by complainantin person. His grievance against OP is the alleged failure to process mutation of waterconnection number 1865240000 since application filed for the same on 15.10.2015 vide file no. 240. The complainant was specifically put to question about the period of limitation to file the complaint before Consumer Commission to which he argued that he was in continuous correspondence with OP from2015 till March 2020 but OP failed to take any steps for five years to process his application for mutation.
2. Since the preliminary issue of maintainability has to be adjudicated whether the complaint is within limitation or time barred u/s 69 of CPA 2019 in the light ofthe settled law that preliminary issue has to be decided first before dealing with the matter on merits as per judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hewlett Packard India Ltd. VsShriRamachanderGehlot in CA no. 7107/2003 decided on 16.02.2004 vide which the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that issue of maintainability has to be decided before hearing the matter on merit and in judgment of Hon’ble NCDRC in Koshy Varghese Vs HDFC Bank Ltd III (2017)CPJ 52 (NC) wherein Hon’ble National Commission held that question in which law point is involved can be decided at any stage of the proceedings,therefore, without going into the merits of the case, we shall adjudicate the admissibility / non-admissibility of the present complaint.
3. Arguments heard on the same. Complainant has simply urged that his grievance is unresolved by OP for which reason he has not been able to obtain mutation from its concerned department for last more than five years and therefore the complaint is within limitation.
4. The law of limitation in Consumer Protection Act (CPA) 2019 is covered under Section 69 of the said Act& is the same as provided under the corresponding Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (now repealed).
5. Section 69 of CPA deals with the limitation period for complaints to be filed within two years from the date on which cause of action has arisen and contains a negative legislative mandate against admission of a complaint which has been filed after two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. In other words the Consumer Commissions do not have the jurisdiction to entertain a complaint if the same is not filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. The law on the said issue has been clearly settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in so far as the nature and scope of Section 24A is concerned in the landmark judgments of KandimallaRaghavaiah& Co. Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd (2009) 7 SCC 768, State Bank of India Vs B S Agricultural Industries (2009) 5 SCC 121 and V. N. Shrikhande (Dr) Vs Anita SenaFernandes (2011) 1 SCC 53.  The Hon’ble National Commission in the judgment of JansattaSahkariAwasSamati Ltd VsKone Elevators India Pvt Ltd I (2016) CPJ 190 NC held that mere sending a legal notice does not constitute a cause of action nor does it extend a period of limitation prescribed in the Act in view of settled proposition of law of limitation as mandatory in nature as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.S. Agriculture Case (Supra) in which the Hon’ble Apex Court took the view that Section 24A of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act is preemptory in nature and requires consumer Forums to see before it adjudicates the complaint that it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. The Hon’ble National Commission in the Judgment of Punjab Small Industries and Export Corporation Ltd and Anr. VsSatinder Pal Singh II (2018) CPJ 245 (NC) has held that the complainant remaining inactive and suddenly sending legal notice to OP cannot entitle him for waiver of limitation period as any amount of correspondence cannot extend limitation period. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in BS Agricultural Industries (Supra) case held the view that it is the duty of the Consumer Forum to take notice of section 24A and give effect to it. If the complaint is barred by time and yet, the Consumer Forum decides the complaint on merits, the Forum would be committing an illegality and therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Tripura &OrsVsArabindaChakraborty&Ors I (2014) SLT 370 decided on 21.04.2014 held that simply by making a representation, period of limitation would not get extended. A person may go on making representation for years and such an event the period of limitation would not commence from the date on which the last representation decided. The said ratio was followed by Hon'ble National Commission in Mahesh Nensi Shah Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. III (2006) CPJ 414 (NC) &Samruddhi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd Vs. Mumbai Mahalaxmi Construction Pvt Ltd. I (2019) CPJ 347 (NC) in which Hon'ble National Commission held that period of limitation cannot get extended on the basis of exchange of communication between parties once cause of action has arisen.
6. The Hon'ble National Commission in the said case was guided by its precedent in Panipat Thermal Power Station HPGCL through its Executive Engineer Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. I (2013) CPJ 114 (NC) in which judgment Hon'ble National Commission held that no subsequent correspondence between the parties after the cause of action can extend period of limitation and the complaint has to be filed within the prescribed statutory period of two years as a person may go on making such representation for years and in such an event, the period of limitation would not commence from the date of which the last representation was decided. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in BikramDassVs Financial Commissioner and Ors AIR 1977SC 1221 held that Limitation Act is a hard task master and judicial interpretation has encased it within a narrow compass. Therefore a litigant who is not vigilant about his right must explain every day’s delay. Sufficient cause has been explained by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Basavraj and AnrVs The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer 2013 AIR SCW6510 as that delay was due to bonafide on the part of party and that party has not acted in a negligent manner or remain inactive; therefore meaning adequate and enough reasons which prevented the applicant to approach the court within limitation. The above ratios of Hon'ble Apex court were followed by Hon'ble National Commission in State of Haryana VsSantra, Anita I (2019) CPJ 211 (NC), Eclectic Developers PVt Vs. SmitaDattaMakhija II (2019) CPJ 545 (NC), Punjab State Power Corp. Ltd Vs. LalSarnDassSarveHitkari School I (2019) CPJ 500 (NC) and Uttar Pradesh MadhyamikShikshaParishadVsGurmeetKaur II (2019) CPJ 19 (NC). The Hon'ble National Commission in Sanjay Singh Vs Baby Chandna in RP no. 2208-2209/2015 decided on 08.09.2015 held that cause of action once accrued cannot be extended by a party by just writing demand letters/ legal notice. In Rishi PrabhatVs. DDA AIR 1995 DEL 9,Hon'ble Delhi SCDRC held that after expiry of limitation period each day’s delay has to be explained.

In view of the settled proposition of law as exhaustively discussed in the foregoing para on the aspect of limitation, we are of the considered opinion and unambiguous conclusion that the present complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation u/s 69. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in N. BalakrishnanVs M. Krishnamurthy VII (1998) SLT 334 laid down that law of limitation is enshrined in the maxim interest republic up sit finis Mum (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation) and that it fixes a life span for such legal remedy for redressal of legal injury so that precious time which is wasted would never revisit. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time to see that party do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Basavraj(supra)case held that sufficient cause means adequate and enough reasons which prevented the applicant to approach the within limitation and party should not have acted in negligent manner or for want of bonafides. It is a settled legal proposition that law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all itsrigor when the statute so prescribes. A court has no power to ignore that provision to relieve what it considers a distress resulting from its operation. The statutory provision may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same. The legal maxim “duralexsedlex” which means “the law is hard but it is the law” stands attracted in such a situation as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Basavraj(Supra) case. In Ramlal&Ors Vs. Rewa Coalfield Ltd, AIR 1962 SC 361, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the court cannot be said to have acted non judicially when it dismisses an application for condonation of delay where no sufficient reasons are shown as it is a discretionary jurisdiction vested in the court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.B. Ramlingamvs R.B. Bhavaneshwari I (2009) SLT 701 laid down that the true guide for examining whether delay in filing has been properly explained is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal / petition.

In the present case however, the complainant has failed to even file any application for condonation of delay and is rather trying to cover up his own acts of omission and commission under the garb of protracted and continuous correspondence between himself and OP from 2015 to 2020 for mutation application pertaining to period 2015 to cover his complaint under limitation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in AnshulAggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) observed that while dealing with such cases of delay, the court has to keep in mind the special period of limitation as prescribed under Section 24A of Consumer Protection Act 1986 and the object of expeditious adjudication and speedy redressal of consumer dispute will get defeated if this court was to entertain highly belated such like complaints in routine manner without any specific reasons supported by material as is squarely applicable in the present case.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in AnshulAggarwal (Supra),CicilyKallarackalVsVehicle Factory IV (2012) CPJ I (SC) , R.B. RamalingamVs R.B. Bhavaneshwary I (2009) SLT 701 and Ram LalVsRewa Coalfields Ltd AIR 1962SC 361held that while deciding an application for condonation of delay, the court has to keep in mind the special period of limitation prescribed under Consumer Protection Act 1986 and whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence and has explained the delay properly with emphasis on necessity to show sufficient cause since the proof of sufficient cause is a condition precedent for exercise of discretionary jurisdiction for condoning delay. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in BikramDassVs Financial Commissioner and Ors AIR 1977SC 1221 held that Limitation Act is a hard task master and judicial interpretation has encased it within a narrow compass. Therefore a litigant who is not vigilant about his right must explain every days delay. The Hon'ble National Commission in Jashomatinandan Das Vs State Bank of India (2006) 3 CPR 406 (NC) held in a case where the complaint was filed after three years of knowledge of cause of action that such a complaint was barred by limitation and upheld the decision of Hon'ble State Commission. The Hon'ble National Commission in Mr. Alok Kumar Mukherjee Vs Dr. Tapas Roy Choudhury (2006) 1 CPR 182 (NC) held that a delay of seven to eight years in filing complaint from date of knowledge cannot be condoned and is clearly barred by limitation of two years under Section 69 of the Act.

The complainant has neither been able to explain the delay nor has preferred any application for condonation of the same as per mandatory requirement u/s 69(2) of CPA. Further on scrutiny of documents, it has been seen that in October 2016 i.e. almost four years ago, the complainant vide letter dated 25.10.2016 to OP had expressed his intention to file case against OP in Consumer Forum for harassment and deficient in service and again had threatened the OP to file consumer complaint against it vide letter dated 03.02.2017 but thereafter just kept endlessly corresponding with OP to extend limitation and actually filed the present complaint four years thereafter whereas the limitation for filing the present complaint expired in 2017 (cause of action having arisen in 2015) itself and the present complaint filed three years thereafter in 2020 is inordinately time barred

8. Therefore following the settled law as discussed exhaustively in the legal discourse of rulings of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble National Commission, we dismiss the present complaint in limine under Section 36(2) of CPA on grounds of same being hopelessly time barred u/s 69 of CPA. No order as to cost.
9.  Let a copy of this order be sent to the complainant free of cost as per Regulation 21 (1) of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
10.   File be consigned to record room.
11.   Announced on  21.10.2020

 

(ArunKumar Arya) President(Addl. Charge)

(Sonica Mehrotra) Member