Delhi

StateCommission

A/455/2018

R.R. GROVER - Complainant(s)

Versus

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, DELHI JAL BOARD - Opp.Party(s)

27 Jan 2020

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Arguments : 27.01.2020

Date of Decision : 04.02.2020

First Appeal No.455/2018

(Arising out of the order dated 26.10.2016 passed in Complaint Case No. 25/2012 by the

District Consumer Redressal Forum- II)

In the matter of :-

 

Sh. R.R. Grover,

5, Nilgiri Apartments,

Alaknanda,

New Delhi-110019.                                                                     …..........Appellant

 

Versus

 

The Executive Engineer,

Delhi Jal Board (South)-III,

Greater Kailash, Part-I,

New Delhi-110048.                                                ….....Respondent

                                                                

CORAM

 

Sh. O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

 

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                       Yes/No

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                     Yes/No

 

Sh. O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

Judgement

1. The complainant is in present appeal against order dated 26.10.2016 passed by District Forum dismissing the complaint on two grounds. One was that appellant has no locus-standi in his own name and not on behalf of his wife who was victim. The other was that neither the appellant nor his wife were consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act as they have not paid any consideration to respondent. Mis-happening took place on account of water supply to the house of appellant.  The same did not have any direct or indirect relation with the supply of water to the house of the appellant.  On 12.07.2010 in the evening, wife of appellant had gone for a walk to Jahapana forest, due to sudden heavy deep down pour of rain, the road became full of water and flooded. Around  7:30 P.M.  she reached her residential complex in Nilgiri Complex, Alaknanda, New Delhi.  The road was hardly visible. Due to it she fell in a 3 ft. deep ditch full of muddy water holding the gate valve sluce of the water pipes under replacement. The holes were not visible as respondent has not ensured to put up any marker to alert the pedestrians or the passers by of the dangers of potholes. She lost her gold chain worth Rs.65,000/- and had to engage full time maid to look after her and her 90 years old mother-in-law to attend day to day responsibility.  Matter was reported to the Municipal Commissioner and CEO of the respondent, FIR was lodged.  Hence the appellant claimed Rs.75,000/- for medical treatment, Rs.65,000/- for gold chain, Rs.49,000/- for maid servant,  Rs.20,000/- for follow up of FIR, Rs.1 lac for mental harassment. In all she claimed Rs.3 lacs.

 

2. The respondent filed WS pleading that work was awarded to Contractor Sh. Ramesh Chand Sharma who was responsible for damages, if any, as per clause 2.3 of agreement dated 16.10.2010.  It was not liable for any loss or damage caused to the appellant as alleged.  The work had already been completed by the respondent. There is no deficiency in service.

 

3. The appellant filed rejoinder and his own affidavit in evidence.  He also filed affidavit of his wife Ms. Kum Kum Grover.

 

4. The respondent filed affidavit of Sh. L.L. Meena, Executive Engineer, South-III.

 

5. After going through the material on record and hearing the arguments the District Forum passed the impugned order dismissing the complaint.

 

6. The respondent was served for 06.03.2019 and put in appearance through its counsel Ms.  Arti Bansal, Adv. It filed reply raising preliminary objections that the appeal has been filed in his own name and not on behalf of his wife.

 

7. I have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments. First of all there is delay for which application has been moved.  The application does not specify the period of delay sought to be condoned.

 

8. The impugned order is dated 26.10.2016 and appeal has been filed on 26.10.2018.  There is delay of about two years in filing the appeal.

 

9. The grounds for condonation taken by the appellant are that he was admitted in Apollo Hospital, Sarita Vihar and request to postpone the hearing was not taken into account by the District Forum. In  August, 2016 he suffered from Chikangunia, from 19.09.2016 to 26.09.2016 there was syst of bladder.  He became physically weak and lost 6 kg. in weight and had difficulty in walking.  He confined to bed with restricted movements. He almost lost his voice which remains affected till filing of appeal.  He had to be under regular medication and other supportive procedures to gain confidence and health. So he could not file appeal.  Now he was reasonably well and filed the appeal.

 

10. Consumer Protection Act provides special period of limitation.  Delay could not be condoned liberally. This was held in Anshul Aggarwal Vs. Noida, IV (2011) CPJ 63.

 

11. In I (2016) CPJ 539 NC did not condone delay of 360 days in filing appeal. In the present case the delay is almost twice of the said period.

 

12. In Noor Singh Vs. Gram Sabha 2012 (4) ILR Delhi 50 Hon’ble High Court of Delhi held that litigant should be vigilant.  Courts do not come to rescue negligent.

 

13. In Hameed Joharan Vs. Abdul Salam (2001) 7 SCC 573 it was held that courts never tolerate an indolent litigant.

 

14. In Cicily Kallaraskal Vs. Vehicle Factory IV (2012) CPJ1 Hon’ble Supreme Court held that inordinate delay without sufficient cause would amount to substituting the period of limitation.

 

15. In Basawaraj Vs. Spl. Laq. Officer, 2013 (14) SSC 81 it was held that limitation must be applied with all rigours.

 

16. In  SLP (C) 37183/13 titled as Sanjay Sidgonda Vs. NIC decided on 17.12.2013, Hon’ble Supreme Court did not condone 13 days delay even.

 

17. Moreover appellant has not filed any document in support of his illness.  The delay is inordinate being almost two years.  There is no ground for condonation.  The application is dismissed.

 

18. Even on merits, I agree with the findings of the District Forum that appellant had no authority to file complaint in his own name.  Injured was his wife Ms. Kum Kum Grover.  There is no power of attorney in favour of appellant.  Appellant relied upon the affidavit of his wife copy of which is at page-44 & 45 of bunch of appeal.  The said affidavit is dated 10.12.2012 and recites that she authorised her husband to file application in the District Forum on her behalf. This at the most shows that she authorised appellant on 10.12.2012.  The complaint was filed on 12.07.2012.  On that day there was no authorisation.

 

19. The appellant relied upon the decision of National  Commission in PNB Vs. K.B. Shetty 1991 (2) CPR 633 in which it was held that husband can file complaint on behalf of wife as in Indian condition, woman may be illiterate and unaware of legal rights.

 

20. In the aforesaid case locker was hired by wife and husband both.  So that is applicable.

 

21. In Amit Sharma Vs. BHEL II (2013) CPJ 505 National Commission held that wife cannot file complaint unless husband is in capacitated. There is no such averment in the present case.  Hence I agree with the view of District Forum that appellant has no locus standi to file complaint in his own name.

 

22. Moreover during arguments the appellant filed copy of order dated 21.07.2015 passed by Sh. Anu Aggarwal, MM-04, SE, Saket Court, New Delhi acquitting the respondent / OP in FIR lodged by the appellant.  That order has become final.  Now this Commission cannot upset finding of the said court that respondent was not negligent. 

 

23. In view of the above discussion, I do not want to enter into controversy whether appellant was or not consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act.  The said question is left open.  The appeal is dismissed as being barred by limitation as well as on merits.

 

24. Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.

 

25. One copy of the order be sent to District  Forum for information.

 

26. File be consigned to Record  Room.

(O.P. Gupta)

Member (Judicial)

Bench-2

                              

245.