Delhi

StateCommission

FA/561/2013

G.M. NORTHERN RAILWAY - Complainant(s)

Versus

KARAN SINGH & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

23 Jan 2017

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: Delhi

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

 

Date of Decision: 23.01.2017

 

First Appeal-561/2013

(Arising out of the order dated 25.03.2010 passed by the District Forum, Kashmere Gate, Delhi in complaint case No. 963/09)

 

 

        In the Matter of:

               

          General Manager

          Northern Railway

          Baroda House, K.G. Marg,

          New Delhi

……Appellant     Versus     1. Sh. Karan Singh S/o Late Sh. Likhi Ram R/o 88, Taimut Nagar Near New Friends Colony New Delhi                                                   2. Choudhary Sakeel Akhatar AIR World Travels 2-18 A, First Floor, New Delhi                                                            …….Respondent

CORAM

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Salma Noor, Member

 

1.   Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the   judgment? 

2.   To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

Salma Noor, Member

1.             Appellant/OP being aggrieved by the order dated 25.03.2010 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kashmere Gate, New Delhi in complaint case No. 963/09 whereby the appellant/OP is directed to refund Rs. 5,862/- along with compensation of Rs. 15,000/- and litigation charges of Rs. 5000/- to the respondent/complainant has proffered the present appeal.

2.             Along with the appeal the appellant has moved an application for condonation of delay, seeking condonation of delay of 1107 days in filing the appeal.

3.             The grounds on which the condonation of delay has been sought is mentioned in para Nos. 2, 3 & 4 of the application. The same are reproduced as under:

        “ii. That the above mentioned Appeal for setting aside of order dated 25.03.2010, has been filed by a delay of 1107 days. It was an ex-parte order the appellant had only first time came to know about the ex-parte order, when the appellant has received notice of execution to appear before the Forum. The appellant thereafter filed the reply of execution application No. 485/2010 through his advocate Ms. Meenu Pandey along with vakalatnama.

        iii. After that the case (appeal) was marked by the Railway administration to the Ld. advocate Ms. Meenu Pandey. Ms. Pandey prepared the appeal and Railway administration sanction the amount for filing the appeal against the order of Ld. District Forum. But said advocate had not filed an appeal due to her ill health and finally written a letter on 07.05.2012 i.e. after 2 years to the CCM refund that due to negligence of Clerk, who later on left the job from her office and at that time the advocate had also to go out for her treatment consequently the appeal could not filed in Hon’ble State Commission.

        iv. That the Railway Officials had after that tried to search original record in the said case and after very lengthy process/ afford the documents were traced by the officials of the appellant in October 2012, and The appellant then appointed another counsel to represent itself before this Hon’ble Commission. The new counsel has discussed the said matter with the officials of Northern Railway and try to trace the above said matter. The counsel found that one other matter titled as “Deshpal versus GM Northern Railways” has also related/ connected to the present case. The matter of as “Deshpal versus GM Northern  Railways” has been solved and the payment in this case has also been paid by GM Northern Railway. After that the counsel of the appellant prepared the appeal and filed the above said case. Due to multi-layered office and searched of connected matters which is above mentioned, delay was caused.”

4.             As per averment made in the application, the appellant was not aware about the order of the Ld. District Forum as it was an ex-parte order and the appellant came to know only when he received an execution notice to appear before the Ld. District Forum. Further, the appellant/OP states that he had filed a reply of the execution application through his advocate Ms. Meenu Pandey before the Ld. District Forum. Nowhere in the application any date is mentioned on which date the appellant/OP had received an execution notice and when he filed a reply to execution application before the Ld. District Forum through his advocate Ms. Meenu Pandey. Another version of the appellant is that advocate Ms. Meenu Pandey prepared the appeal but she could not file the same due to her ill health and after two years she informed the appellant that the appeal was not filed before the State Commission.

5.             Respondent-1/complainants has filed the reply to the application wherein he stated that the Ld. District Forum did not to take on record the reply filed by the appellant vide its order dated 10.03.2011 and asked the appellant to comply the impugned order of the Ld. District Forum. Thereafter, the appellant has chosen not to appear before the Ld. District Forum. It is further contended by the respondent-1/complainant that to substantiate its averments appellant has neither filed any affidavit of Ms. Meenu Pandey nor any medical certificate supporting illness of the said advocate.

6.             Considering the grounds of condonation of delay alleged by the appellant/OP in its application as well as reply thereto, it is our considered view that the appellant/OP was very much aware of the order of the Ld. District Forum on or before 10.03.2011, and filed this appeal on 09.05.2013 after passing of almost 2 years which shows the careless attitude of the appellant/OP due to which the delay of over two years has been caused. The appellant has failed to give any sufficient and cogent reasons.

7.             Further, in para (iv) of the application reproduced above, explanation offered by the appellant for the delay is only internal and departmental procedure which is also not disputable as department have miserably failed to give any sufficient reason to conclude such delay.

8.             It is well settled that sufficient cause for condoning delay in each case is a question of fact.

9.             In Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. Vs. Living Media Ltd. & Anr.”, II (2012) SLT 312 wherein it was held by the Apex Court as under:

        “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 red-tape in the process. The Government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitments. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for Government departments. The Law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the department for the delay except mentioning the 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.            In R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, 2013(1) CCC 525 (NS) : 2009(2) Scale 108, it has been 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”.

11.            Similarly, in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kailash Devi & Ors. AIR 1994 Punjab and Haryana 45, it has been laid down as under:

                “There is no denying the fact that the expression sufficient cause should normally be construed liberally so as to advance substantial justice but that would be in a case where no negligence or inaction or want of bona fide is imputable to the applicant. The discretion to condone the delay is to be exercised judicially i.e. one of which is not to be swayed by sympathy or benevolence”.

12.            Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, 2013(1) CCC 910(NS) : IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) has held as under:

                “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 matter and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated it this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the consumer Foras.”

13.            Observations made by Apext court in the authoritative pronouncements discussed above are fully attracted to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

14.            Thus, gross negligence, deliberate inaction and lack of bona fides is imputable to the appellants/OP. Accordingly, no sufficient grounds are made out for condoning the long delay of 1107 days in filing the present appeal. The application for condonation of delay under these circumstances is not maintainable and present appeal being barred by limitation is hereby dismissed. As the application for condonation of delay is dismissed, the appeal filed by the appellant is also dismissed.

                A copy of the order be sent to the parties free of costs as well as to Ld. District Forum for necessary information.

                File be consigned to record room.         

        (Justice Veena Birbal))

President

 

 

(Salma Noor)

Member

Rakeeba