Haryana

StateCommission

A/1117/2017

STATE OF HARYANA - Complainant(s)

Versus

MANJU - Opp.Party(s)

M.P. GODARA

08 May 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

         

         

First Appeal No.       1117 of 2017

Date of Institution:       15.09.2017

Date of Decision:         08.05.2018

 

 

1.      State of Haryana through Collector, Rohtak.

2.      Sub Divisional Magistrate, Rohtak.

3.      District Social Welfare Officer, Rohtak.

                             Appellants-Opposite Parties

 

Versus

 

Smt. Manju wife of late Ashok Kumar, resident of Village and Post Office Nigana, Tehsil and District Rohtak.

Respondent-Complainant

 

 

 

CORAM:   Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                   Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

 

 

Argued by:   Shri Ashok Pasricha, Deputy Advocate General for the appellants

                     Shri Vikrant Sharma, Advocate for the respondent

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

         State of Haryana through Collector and others-opposite parties (appellants herein) are in appeal against the order dated August 30^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (for short, ‘District Forum’) whereby complaint filed by Smt. Manju-complainant, was accepted. For facilitation, the operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

“8.     In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the opposite parties shall pay the insured sum of Rs.1,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of present complaint, that is, March 06^th, 2013 till its actual realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision failing which the opposite parties shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum on the awarded amount from the date of decision.  Complaint is allowed accordingly.”

2.      The appellants filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of 346 days delay in filing the appeal. The grounds taken in the application are as under:-

“2.     That this office came to know vide District Attorney, Rohtak letter No.4104 dated 29.09.2016 that the complaint has been decided by the ld. District Forum on 30.08.2016.  Thereafter, this office sent a letter 10.03.2017 vide memo No.489 to the Legal Remembrancer & Administrative Secretary to Government, Haryana Law and Legislative Department, SCO No.57-59, Sector 17C, Chandigarh with the request that the Advocate General Haryana be requested for filing appeal against the impugned order with a copy endorsed to Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Social Justice & Empowerment Haryana, Chandigarh and Director, Department of Social Justice & Empowerment Haryana, Chandigarh.  The L.R. Haryana requested the Deputy District Attorney, Rohtak vided his office memo No.6246-49 dated April 05^th, 2017 to sent the comments through District Attorney at the earliest.  The District Attorney Rohtak vide his office letter No.1229-30 dated April 19^th, 2017 stated that the opinion/comments of the above said case has already been sent to the concerned department District Social Welfare Office, Rohtak Sh. Mahabir Singh, DDA vide letter dated September 29^th, 2016.

3.      That the appellant again sent letter to Legal Remembrancer, Haryana vide this office letter No.925 dated May 19^th, 2017 requesting again that the Advocate General Haryana be requested for filing appeal before the Hon’ble State Consumer Commission, Haryana, Panchkula against impugned order.  The L.R. Haryana directed the Assistant District Attorney, Rohtak vide his office memo No.10231-32 dated May 19^th, 2017 to send the comments of the present case under the signature of concerned District Attorney addressed to this department at the earliest with a copy endorsed to this office.

4.      That the L.R. Haryana directed the Assistant District Attorney, Rohtak as well as the Office of District Social Welfare Office, Rohtak vide his office memo No.12111 dated June 13^th, 2017 that you must read this department letter No.6239-43 dated April 05^th, 2017 carefully and reply accordingly if, department insists on filing then send request under the para 20.4 (C) Law Department Manual through Administrative Department immediately.”

3.      This Commission has considered the submissions made on behalf of the appellants. The explanation for the delay caused in filing of the appeal is vague and far from being satisfactory.

4.      A 30 days period has been prescribed in Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ‘Act’), for filing appeal against the order of the District Forum. However, the proviso contained 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 period prescribed. The expression ‘sufficient cause’ has not been defined in the Act, rightly so, because it would vary per facts and circumstances of each particular case.

5.      The delay cannot be condoned on the ground of equity and generosity. While proceeding with the prayer made it has to be kept in mind that expiration of the period of limitation prescribed gives a right to the adversary to treat the order as binding between the parties and this legal right provided by lapse of time should not be disturbed light heartedly. Similar view dovetails from the following authoritative pronouncements:-

6.      Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bikram Dass Versus Financial Commissioner and others, AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1221 has held as under:-

“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 right must explain every day’s delay.”

7.      In Govt. of Rajasthan & Ors versus Janak Singh & anr, IV(2014) CPJ 36 (NC), Hon’ble National Commission relied upon the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court as under:-

“8.      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.”

8.        In view of the above, this Commission has to bear in mind that the object of expeditious disposal of consumer dispute would get defeated if such like applications are allowed. The law comes to the assistance of the vigilant and not of the sleepy.

9.      The grounds taken in the application are a sad commentary on the working of the employees of the appellants and these grounds are manifestation of the laxity, negligence and inefficiency.  To accept such grounds as sufficient cause for condonation of delay would tantamount to putting premium on the parties own acts of negligence and non challance.  So, this Commission does not find it a fit case to condone the delay of 346 days. Hence, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed.

10.    In view of the above, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

11.    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.

 

 

Announced 08.05.2018

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK