STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW
APPEAL NO. 2408 OF 2014
(Against the judgment/order dated 20-02-2014 in Complaint
Case No. 31/2010 of the District Consumer Forum, Sitapur)
Ajay Kumar Singh
S/o Late Sri Chandrika Prasad Singh
R/o Village and Post Neri
District Sitapur ...Appellant/Complainant
Vs.
- Chairman
Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.
Lucknow
Through Executive Engineer
Vidyut Vitran Khand-I
District Sitapur
- Tehsildar
Tehsil Mishrikh
District Sitapur.
- Rajasva Kurk Amin
Region-Neri, Post Neri
District Sitapur
...Respondents/Opposite Parties
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRENDRA SINGH, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MRS. BAL KUMARI, MEMBER
HON’BLE MR. RAJ KAMAL GUPTA, MEMBER
For the Appellant : None appears.
For the Respondent : -
Dated : 13-04-2015
JUDGMENT
MR. JUSTICE VIRENDRA SINGH, PRESIDENT (ORAL)
This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/complainant against the judgment and order dated 20-02-2014 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Sitapur in Complaint Case No. 31/2010 thereby dismissing the complaint of the appellant and directed the respondents/opposite parties to comply with the order passed by Hon’ble High Court on 24-01-2012 in Misc. Writ Petition No. 708/2012.
This appeal is put up today for admission. No one appeared on behalf of the appellant. We have perused the entire record.
The impugned order was passed on 20-02-2014, the copy of which was
:2:
received by the appellant on 26-02-2014 and the appeal is filed on 21-11-2014 which is apparently time barred. Though an application for delay condonation has been filed on record accompanied with an affidavit of Ajay Kumar Singh, the appellant stating therein that the appellant is a very old and feeble person and suffering from several old disease and was not aware about the legal proceedings as such he could not contact the present counsel to file the present appeal and some delay has been caused. It is further stated that in the second week of November,2014 the appellant contacted to the present counsel who after perusing the records advised to file the appeal. Thereafter the present appeal has been prepared and the same is being filed before this Commission without causing any further delay. The delay in filing the present appeal is neither deliberate nor intentional and the same is liable to be condoned. The matter relates to the recovery of electric dues and if the delay is not condoned and the appeal is not heard and decided on merits, the appellant shall suffer irreparable loss and injury.
We are not convinced with the above facts and these facts cannot be the basis of satisfaction of this Commission that there had been sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the period stipulated in Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act for entertaining the appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days for filing the appeal from the date of the order, because the law is very much clear in this regard. In various cases decided by the Hon'ble National Commission it is held that an application for condonation of delay should be decided keeping in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 for filing the appeals and revisions in the consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if the courts entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the consumer foras.
A party should show that besides acting bonafide, it had taken all possible steps within its power and control and had approached the court without any unnecessary delay. The test is whether or not a cause is sufficient to see whether it could have been avoided by the party by the exercise of due care and attention, is the law laid down by the Apex Court on 08-07-2010 in Civil Appeal No. 1166 of 2006 Balwant Singh (dead) versus Jagdish Singh and others.
In Ram Lal and others versus Rewa Coalfields Limited, AIR 1962 SC 361, it has been observed that 'it is, however, necessary to emphasize that even
:3:
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 Section 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 bonafides may fall for consideration but the scope of the inquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such fact as the court may regard as relevant'.
Recently the Apex Court in the Office of the Chief Post Master General and others versus Living Media India Ltd. and another decided on 24-02-2012 in Civil Appeal No. 2474-2475 of 2012 arising out of SLP (C) No. 7595-96 of 2011 was pleased to observe:
“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 government departments. The law shelters every one 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 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.”
In the light of the law laid down in the case of Ram Lal and others versus Rewa Coalfields Limited, AIR 1962 SC 361 if we enquire the relevant facts even in limited scope of this case, apparently the sufficient cause is not proved before us, therefore, nothing further has to be done and the application for condonation of delay is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. The delay in filing of this appeal cannot be condoned merely stating that the appellant is a very old and feeble person and suffering from several old disease and was not
:4:
aware about the legal proceedings.
Hence without making any elaborate discussion on the merit of the case of the appellant, prima facie we do not find any sufficient cause in which the delay for filing the appeal should be condoned and therefore, the appeal being time barred is liable to be dismissed.
ORDER
The appeal is hereby dismissed.
( JUSTICE VIRENDRA SINGH )
PRESIDENT
( SMT. BAL KUMARI )
MEMBER
( RAJ KAMAL GUPTA )
MEMBER
pnt
