Uttarakhand

StateCommission

A/192/2022

Ramchander - Complainant(s)

Versus

Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. Sanjay Yadav

18 Nov 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND

DEHRADUN

 

FIRST APPEAL NO. 192 / 2022

 

Sh. Ramchander S/o Sh. Antram

R/o Lane No. 25, Krishna Nagar, Roorkee

Post Roorkee, P.S. Kotwali Gangnahar

Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar

…… Appellant / Complainant

 

Versus

 

1.         Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division

            Ramnagar, Roorkee, District Haridwar

 

2.         Sub Divisional Officer, Electricity Distribution Division

            Ramnagar, Roorkee, District Haridwar

 

3.         Junior Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division

            Ramnagar, Roorkee, District Haridwar

 

4.         Uttarakhand Power Corporation Limited

            Roorkee

…… Respondents / Opposite Parties

 

Sh. Sanjay Yadav, Learned Counsel for the Appellant

 

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.S. Tripathi, President

               Mr. Udai Singh Tolia,                         Member-II

                                   

Dated: 18/11/2022

ORDER

(Per: Justice D.S. Tripathi, President):

 

This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 30.04.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haridwar (in short “The District Commission”) in consumer complaint No. 365 of 2021; Sh. Ramchander Vs. Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, Ramnagar, Roorkee, District Haridwar and others, by which the consumer complaint filed by the appellant – complainant has been dismissed.  According to office report dated 19.09.2022, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant after a delay of 127 days’.

 

2.       We have heard learned counsel for the appellant on delay condonation application at the admission stage itself and perused the record.          

 

3.       The delay condonation application has been moved by the appellant for condoning the delay in filing the appeal.  The application is supported by affidavit.  In the delay condonation application, it has been stated that the limitation for filing the appeal against the impugned judgment and order was upto 14.06.2022, but on account of summer vacations in court, counsel for the appellant used to sit in his chamber for a short time and whenever appellant visited his counsel, the chamber was found locked.  From 01.07.2022 to 31.08.2022, the appellant was under treatment, being ill / sick.  On 01.09.2022, the appellant contacted his counsel, who informed that the consumer complaint has been dismissed.  The counsel told that he has instructed his colleague to apply for certified copy of impugned judgment and order, who will prepare the appeal and file the same, as he does not practice before the State Commission, Dehradun.  Thereafter, the appellant contacted his new counsel, who prepared the appeal and the same is being filed.  There is no intentional or deliberate delay in filing the appeal.

 

4.       Learned counsel, while placing reliance on the averments made in the delay condonation application, submitted that in the interest of justice, the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and the appeal should be heard and decided on its merit.

 

5.       From the facts stated in the delay condonation application, it is apparent that the main grounds taken by the appellant therein are that of summer vacations in court and that of his illness.  Both the said grounds are not sustainable on account of the reasons mentioned hereinafter.

 

6.       It would not be out of place to mention here that the judgment and order impugned in this appeal is dated 30.04.2022.  The appellant has not given any explanation for the entire month of May, 2022.  It is true that in the month of June, there are summer vacations in District Court, Haridwar, but there are no such vacations in District Commission.  It can not be believed that the appellant could not contact his counsel for the entire month of June, 2022.  The appellant has not stated that he tried to contact his counsel on his mobile, but that way also, he could not contact the counsel.  Even if the appellant was not able to contact / meet his counsel throughout the month of June, 2022, he could have himself visited the office of District Commission, Haridwar and inquired about the consumer complaint filed by him, but nothing of the sort was done by him.

 

7.       The second ground taken by the appellant of his illness is, prima facie, false.  In the delay condonation application, it has been stated that the appellant remained ill / under treatment from 01.07.2022 to 31.08.2022, whereas in the medical certificate issued by Dr. D.M. Mittal, B.A.M.S., M.D., Consultant Physician, Sri Sai Medical Centre, Roorkee, submitted by the appellant in support of delay condonation application, it has been mentioned that the appellant remained under treatment of the said doctor from 01.07.2022 to 03.08.2022.  The said certificate does not disclose that the appellant was on total bed rest.  He was merely advised rest by the medical practitioner.  The medical certificate is also dated 03.08.2022, which falsifies the claim of the appellant that he remained ill till 31.08.2022.  This apart, in the said medical certificate, it has been mentioned that the appellant has taken treatment for chest pain coupled with other diseases.  No pathology report has been filed on record to show that the appellant was actually having chest pain or any other disease.  The appellant has not even cared to file the original medical certificate and rest his duty by filing only photocopy of the medical certificate dated 03.08.2022, which as stated above, demolishes the entire ground of his illness from 01.07.2022 to 31.08.2022.

 

8.       In the case of Swiss International Air Lines Ltd. Vs. Jitender Mohan Bhasin and others reported in III (2012) CPJ 583 (NC), there was delay of 244 days’ in filing the revision petition.  It was held by Hon’ble National Commission that the petitioner has failed to offer convincing rationale of reasons in support of his application.  It was also held that the name of earlier counsel was not mentioned in the application and it was the duty cast on the petitioner itself to find out what has happened to his case and whether appeal has been filed or not.  It was observed that there was gross negligence, deliberate inaction and lack of bonafides are imputable to the petitioner and the delay was not condoned.  In the case of Vinod Kumar Patel Vs. Sambit Kumar Das reported in III (2012) CPJ 703 (NC), it has been held by Hon’ble National Commission that it is well settled that qui facit per alium facit per se.  Negligence of a litigant’s agent is negligence of the litigant himself and is not sufficient cause for condoning delay.

 

9.       Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Jain International Sansthan Vs. Krish City, Bhiwadi and another reported in III (2016) CPJ 2 (NC), has declined to condone the delay of 168 days’ in filing the revision petition and has held that no lucid excuse is forthcoming from the petitioner to justify the delay in filing the revision petition.  It was held that the case is barred by time.  In the said decision, reliance was placed upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court given in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 37183 of 2013; Sanjay Sidgonda Patil Vs. Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited and another, decided on 17.12.2013 reported in 2013 (SLT Soft) 6, wherein Hon’ble Apex Court has confirmed the order of Hon’ble National Commission and refused to condone the delay of 13 days’.

 

10.     Hon’ble National Commission in the case of HUDA Vs. Sunil Gupta reported in IV (2012) CPJ 360 (NC), has declined to condone the delay in filing the revision petition.  In the said case, the delay of 36 days’ in filing the revision petition was not condoned and it was held that the procedural delay is not the sufficient cause for condoning the delay.  Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Rajasthan Housing Board Vs. Vishnu Chand Sharma reported in IV (2012) CPJ 676 (NC), has held that the only explanation that file was moved from table to table to get permission to file petition is not sufficient and the delay of 169 days’ in filing the revision petition was not condoned.

 

11.     For the reasons aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant has not been able to satisfactorily explain an inordinate delay in filing the appeal and there is no plausible explanation put forward by the appellant for making a case in his favour, so as to allow the delay condonation application and condone the delay in filing the appeal.  Consequently, the application for condonation of delay warrants dismissal.

 

12.     Application for condonation of delay is dismissed.  As a consequence thereof, the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable, being barred by limitation.  No order as to costs.

 

13.     A copy of this Order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 / 2019.  The Order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.

 

 

(U.S. TOLIA)                            (JUSTICE D.S. TRIPATHI)

               Member-II                                                President

 

K