0STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                         First Appeal No.210 of 2015

Date of Institution: 04.03.2015

Date of Decision: 20.03.2015

1. Haryana Urban Development Authority, Sector-14, Gurgaon through Administrator.
2. Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development authority, Sector-56, Gurgaon.
3. Chief Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula.

…..Appellants

Versus

Lokesh Kumar Singhal S/o Sh. K.S.singhal, r/o H.No.151, Sector 15-A, Hisar (Haryana).

…..Respondents

CORAM:             Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                                        

Present:               Shri Ajay Nara, Advocate counsel for appellants.

O R D E R

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

          Appellants have filed this application for condonation of delay of 1229 days in filing the appeal.  It is alleged that they entrusted the case to Sh.Jawahar Lal Gulyani, Advocate and handed over entire record of the case to him. Unfortunately, Sh.Jawahar Lal Gulyani expired. They put their best efforts at the first instance to recover the brief from the office of the counsel.  When they failed to get the relevant documents from the office of the counsel they re-constructed the file by collecting documents from other sources, which resulted in delay in filing the appeal. In this way delay on their part was not intentional.

2.      Arguments heard.  File perused.

3.       Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued as per facts mentioned in the application, it is clear that they were pursuing the matter bonafidely.  He further argued that after death of their counsel they re-constructed the file by collecting documents from other sources, as mentioned above. It shows that appellants were trying to collect matter from one source or another.

4.      This argument is of no avail.  As per appellant Sh.Jawahar Lal Gulyani  Advocate expired on 17.04.2012 whereas this appeal has been filed on 20.03.2015.  All the documents were available on the file of the District Forum so it cannot be presumed that the appellant took such a long time to re-construct them. They could have obtained the copies there and then and file the appeal.  The reason stated in the application is not plausible. 

4.                A period of 30 days has been provided for filing an appeal against the order of the District Forum. The proviso therein permits the State Commission to entertain an appeal after the expiry of the period of 30 days if it is satisfied that there is “Sufficient cause” for not filing the appeal within the prescribed period. The expression of sufficient cause has not been defined in the Act rightly so, because it would vary from facts and circumstances of each case.

5.       The inordinate delay of 1229 days cannot be condoned in the light of the following judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others, AIR, 1977 Supreme Court 1221 has held that;

“Section 5 of the Limitation Act is a hard task-master and judicial interpretation has encased it within a narrow compass. A large measure of case-law has grown around S.5, its highlights being that one ought not easily to take away a right which has accrued to a party by lapse of time and that therefore a litigant who is not vigilant about his rights must explain every days delay.”

The Hon’ble National Commission in case Government of U.T. Electricity Department & Others versus Ram Lubhai, II(2006) CPJ 104 has held that:-

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 15 –Appeal –Maintainability – Limitation –Condonation of delay– Resjudicata –Appeal filed after a delay of 44 days –Plea of procedural delay in getting approval for filing appeal – Appeal filed by complainant against order of District Forum decided and copy of order dispatched to parties prior to filing of appeal by opposite party –Appeal and application for condonation of delay dismissed –Matter once finally concluded by any Court cannot be reopened by same Court.”

          In R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari 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.”

      In 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.”

    Hon’ble Supreme Court in  Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation reported in (2010) 5 SCC 459 held as under;

“We have considered   the respective    submissions.  The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The   legislature does not prescribe limitation with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that   they    do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek remedy without delay. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a period fixed by the legislature. To put it differently, the law of limitation prescribes a period within which legal remedy can be availed for redress of the legal injury. At the same   time, the courts are bestowed with the power to condone the delay, if sufficient cause is shown for not availing the remedy within the stipulated time.”       

    In (2012) 3 SCC 563 Post Master General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. and Anr. Hon’ble Apex Court has not condoned delay in filing appeal even by Government department and observed that condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the Government departments.

    In 2012 (2) CPC 3 (SC) – Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, Hon’ble Apex Court observed 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 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”.

          Taking into account the ground taken by the appellant in the application for condonation of delay and the settled principle of law, this Commission does not find it a fit case to condone the delay of 1229 days in filing of the appeal. Hence, the application of the appellant is dismissed.

6       Resultantly, this appeal is hereby dismissed as time barred.

7.      The opposite parties-appellants are directed to fix the responsibility of the concerned official, who was responsible for delay. The loss suffered by department be recovered from the concerned employee/employees as per opinion of Hon’ble Supreme Court expressed in  Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation reported in (2010) 5 SCC 459 and Lucknow Development Authority V. M.K.Gupta, AIR 1994 SC 787. Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed  in Lucknow Development Authority V. M.K.Gupta (Supra) as under:-

“When the Court directs payment of damages or compensation against the State the ultimate sufferer is the common man.  It is the tax payer’s money which is paid for inaction of those who are entrusted under the Act to discharge their duties in accordance with law.  It is, therefore, necessary that the Commission when it is satisfied that a complainant is entitled to compensation for harassment or mental agony or oppression, which finding of course should be recorded carefully on material and convincing circumstances and not lightly, then it should further direct the department concerned to pay the amount to the complainant from the public fund ‘immediately’ but to recover the same from those who are found responsible for such unpardonable behavior by dividing it proportionately where there are more than one functionaries.”

8.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/-  deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision if any.