This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners Rajasthan Housing Board & anr. against the order dated 01.05.2018 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in First Appeal No.1097 of 2017.

2.      Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/ complainant applied for general registration scheme for allotment of MIG-II house in the year 1980 on hire-purchase mode and deposited Rs.4600/- as registration amount.  Opposite parties issued reservation letter dated 30.10.1993 to complainant demanding seed money Rs.40,000/- which complainant failed to deposit.  On 1.6.2000, the complainant’s registration was cancelled on non-payment of seed money.  On 05.12.2007, complainant submitted a representation to restore his registration and accordingly he had to pay Rs.1,15,000/- which the complainant paid.  The complainant’s name was added to the lottery and he was issued MIG house on 28.12.2011.  Complainant requested to allot independent flat instead of flat allotted on 28.12.2011.  The complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Jaipur-II, (in short the ‘District Forum’), which was allowed vide its order dated 16.08.2012 as follows:-

“On the basis of above analysis, complainant’s complaint against the Opp. Parties is allowed and order is given that:

1. The Opp. Parties, within two months from today, on account of not allotting independent house to the complainant, give Rs.500,000.00 (Rupees Five Lakh Only) towards compensation and by accepting price of allotted flat bearing No.101/B-306 as per rule on the prevailing rate on 17.10.2011 give its possession to him;

2. Alternatively, if complainants desires, in Pratap Nagar or Indira Nagar wherever independent house is available, he is entitled to get independent house of MIG ‘B’ Category on prevailing rate as on 07.10.2011.The complainant has the right to chose any alternate out of aforesaid both alternates.

3. Besides this, the Opp. Parties give Rs.10,000.00 (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the complainant towards cost of litigation within two months from today otherwise the complainant shall be entitled to get interest on the said amount from today @9% p.a.”

3.      Aggrieved with the above order of the District Forum, the opposite parties/petitioners filed an appeal before the State Commission.  The State Commission vide its order dated 01.05.2018 passed the following order:-

“In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed.  The consumer respondent is entitled to get Rs.2 lakhs as compensation instead of rs.5 lakhs awarded by the Forum below.  Relief of para no.2 is set aside and so also the order in relation to cost of the flat is set aside.”

4.      Hence, this revision petition.

5.      Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at the admission stage.  Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the District Forum had allowed a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- on the ground that the complainant booked an independent house, however, he was allotted a flat in a multi-storey building.  Learned counsel stated that the registration of the respondent was cancelled on 01.06.2000, but later on his registration was revived in the scheme and ultimately he was allotted an accommodation in the year 2011. From the application form, it is clear that the booking does not specify whether the application was made for an independent house or for a flat.  Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners have wrongly allotted a flat instead of independent house.  Whatever property was available in the year 2011, the same has been allotted to the respondent/complainant.  Learned counsel stated that the petitioners preferred an appeal against the order of the District Forum before the State Commission and the State Commission has reduced the compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- awarded by the District Forum to Rs.2,00,000/-.  Learned counsel argued that there is no deficiency on the part of the petitioners as explained above because there was no commitment to allot only an independent house.  The State Commission has recorded this fact in its order. The State Commission has still awarded a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-.  The present revision petition has been filed only for setting aside the order of the State Commission in respect of the award of compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-.

6.      Learned counsel further mentioned that the present revision petition has been filed with a delay of 101 days.  The delay has occurred on account of obtaining advice and higher orders to file the revision petition.  Once a decision has been taken by the higher authorities, the revision petition has been filed.  It was requested to condone the delay on the ground mentioned in the application for condonation of delay.

7.      I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and have examined the record.  It is seen from the record that there is a delay of 103 days as reported by the Registry in filing the present revision petition.  Application for condonation of delay reads as under:-

“4.   That the OIC of petitioner board send the copy of order to the Director law for necessary action by pre-litigation committee of petitioner board, the meeting of committee was not organized within time due to non-availability of the members during this period and the committee considered the order passed by Hon’ble State Commission in its meeting dated 17.09.2018 on all prospects and aspects by taking opinion from the concerned IOC and counsel of board and came to the conclusion that the order cannot be complied with the order for payment of compensation is on higher side and direction passed by Hon’ble State Commission which is totally contrary to the facts & circumstances of the case therefore, decided to challenge the order in appeal before this Hon’ble Commission and engaged the undersigning counsel and Officer Incharge vide its office order no.961 dated 28.09.2018, the entire process for taking decision to file appeal was quite lengthy, therefore, it took some time, however the decision was taken well within limitation period.

5.     That the undersigning counsel received the above office order for appointment cum authority letter with certified copy of impugned order on 5.10.2018 in his office and the IOC of case Sh. Sitaram Bari contacted the counsel and provided the documents, case file and affidavits on 23.09.2018 for filing the revision, by personally visiting.

6.     That counsel for petitioners was having other engagements and could not draft the revision well within time due to personal difficulty and bad health conditions therefore drafted the revision on 10.11.2018 and send the same for vetting, which was verified and approved by the IOC therefore, present revision is filed without any further delay, therefore, the delay of 101 days occurred in filing the petition, which is liable to be condoned keeping in view merits of case, grounds taken in accompanying revision petition and in the interest of justice.”

8.      From the above, it would be seen that the delay has occurred due to red tape procedures adopted by the petitioners in obtaining the higher orders. Special periods of limitation have been prescribed in the Consumer Protection Act 1986, its Rules and Regulations for speedy disposal of consumer disputes. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) has laid down that;

“It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the consumer Foras.”

9.      Hon’ble Supreme Court in Postmaster General &Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. &Anr.  (2012) 3 SCC 563 has observed as under:- 

“29. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and  instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few.

30.    Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay.  Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay”.

10.    Petitioner in the present case is a Government agency and therefore, the above observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Postmaster General &Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. &Anr. (supra) are fully applicable in the present case.

11.    Examining the merits of the case, it is seen that the State Commission has already reduced the compensation from Rs.5,00,000/- granted by the District Forum to Rs.2,00,000/-.  The complainant has got the accommodation after many years and a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for this delay seems to be reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case.  In fact, assertion of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not correct that the State Commission has awarded the compensation for inability of the petitioners to allot an independent house.  In fact, apart from this, much relief has already been granted to the petitioners by the State Commission against the order of the District Forum and therefore, I do not feel any pressing need in the interest of justice on the ground of merits to condone the delay of 103 days.  In taking this view, I am supported by the following judgments:-

1.       Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361. It has been observed;

“It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by S.5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the enquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant.”

2.       R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, 2009 (2) Scale 108. It has observed:-

“We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition”.

12.    The above judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court are fully applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Negligence and deliberate inaction are clearly imputable to the petitioners in filing the present revision petition.  The reasons given in the application for condonation of delay are only administrative and procedural and therefore, they cannot be accepted as sufficient cause in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Postmaster General &Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. &Anr. (supra).      Accordingly the application for condonation of delay is dismissed.  Consequently, the Revision Petition No.3133 of 2018 is also dismissed at the admission stage.