SUSHEELA SHARMA VS EE (CONSTRUCTION)DR.-XII (DJB) & ANR.
27.01.2023 CC/389/22
- Vide this order we shall decide the application filed by the Complainant to condone the delay in filing the present complaint.
- Briefly stated facts of the present complaint are that the complainant has a water connection of OP-1. OP-1 executed a tender having work order no.05 (2018-19) dated 21.05.2018 to lay sewer pipe line in the complainant’s colony. OP-2 after taking the tender from OP-1 started the work on 18.03.2019.
- It is stated by the complainant that after laying 200 m sewer pipe line OP-2 stopped work and has not started the same to date. Due to this sewage water disposal has blocked the complainant’s gate and the sewage water in continuously flowing into her house from April, 2019.
- Unable to live in such conditions the complainant has had to therefore live on rent despite having her own house. She further states that though she met the officers of OP-1 several times at the Pitam Pura office to apprise them of the condition no action was taken against OP-2 nor the civil work completed.
- Through an RTI application dated 01.08.2020, she requested OP-1 to do the needful however she only received a reply stating that the sewer pipe line work would be completed till 17.03.2022. However the work is still incomplete till the filing of this complaint i.e. on 28.09.2022.
- On 28.02.2022, the complainant issued a legal notice to OP-1 & OP-2 for their irresponsible behavior and when both OP’s did not take any concrete steps to complete the work and the sewage water still continued to flow into her house the complainant filed the present complaint on 28.09.2022 along with the condonation of delay application under section 69 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
- We have considered the complainants claim and have carefully perused the documents filed by the complainant to corroborate her claim when the husband of the complainant stated on record that the complainant did not wish to address oral arguments towards the application and the application may be decided based on material on record.
- The complainant has filed the application wherein she stated that on 06.05.2020 she lodged a complaint with OP-1 regarding illegal work done due to which the sewer water entered the house of the complainant but the OP’s did not take any action. Hence, the cause of action accrued in May, 2020. The limitation to file the present complaint expired in May, 2022. In light of the Suo Moto extension granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No.3/2020 order dated 14.07.2021 in RE: "Cognizance for Extension of Limitation" limitation period from 15.03.2020 till further order shall stand excluded.
As per para 2 (1) & 2(2) Judgment:
“2(1). In computing the period of Limitation for any suit, appeal, application or proceedings the period from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 shall stand excluded. Consequently, the balance period of Limitation remaining as on 15.03.2020, if any, shall become available with
effect from 15.03.2021."
“2(2). In case where the Limitation would have expired during the period between 15.02.2020 till 14.03.2021, notwithstanding the actual balance period of Limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 15.03.2021, in the event the actual balance period of 90 days from 15.03.2021. In the event the effect from 15.03.2021, is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply.
- The complainant filed the present complaint on 28.09.2022 and hence the complainant has filed the application for condonation of delay stating that the delay in filing the complaint was due to the main counsel suffering from a serious illness which escalated, into him falling into a coma. Hence the complainant had to engage a new counsel and therefore got delayed which was neither intentional nor deliberate in filing the complaint.
- A bare perusal of the order sheets show that on 31.10.2022 Counsel Pradeep Kumar Saini had appeared for the complainant and filed his Vakalatnama stating on record that he would file an application for condonation of delay on the next date due to the complaint being time barred. On 13.12.2022, Husband of the complainant sh. Hari Om Sharma appeared and stated that the main counsel was unwell and in Coma and thus would not appear.
- The complainant’s averment is therefore falsified as the counsel fell ill after filing the complaint which is time barred as per under section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which states as below:-
Section 69. Limitation period
- The District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period:
Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the District Commission or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.
- The limitation in the present complaint began on 06.05.2020 as per the complainant’s own statement in his application which expired on 05.05.2022 and the complaint was filed on 28.09.2022 i.e. after a delay of almost 4 ½ months. It is pertinent that the complainant give cogent reason for the aforementioned delay which the complainant has not placed on record instead she has given a false statement that her counsel was unable to file the complaint due to being in a coma best known to her.
- We therefore dismiss this application and consequently dismiss the present complaint in toto. Next date of hearing given i.e. 23.02.2023 is hereby cancelled.
File be consigned to record room.
Order be given dasti to both parties.
