1.       Mr. Rustam Malik, proxy counsel has appeared on behalf of the applicant / petitioner and submits that he has instructions to argue the matter and he may be heard.   

2.       Heard learned proxy counsel for the applicant / petitioner.

3.                          IA/15330/2024 (Condonation Of Delay)

The present application has been moved seeking condonation of delay in filing the MA/756/2024 (for restoration).

For the reasons stated in the delay condonation application and in order to decide the application on merits rather than scuttle it at the threshold on the point of limitation, the delay in filing the MA/756/2024 is condoned.

4.                          MA/756/2024

The present application has been moved seeking recall of Order dated 15.05.2024 vide which the present revision petition was dismissed in non-prosecution.

Heard.

Learned counsel for the applicant / petitioner has tried to explain the circumstances which resulted in the dismissal of the petition in non-prosecution.  Cause shown is sufficient.

In the interest of justice the Order dated 15.05.2024 is being recalled and the present petition is restored to its original number.

REVISION PETITION NO. 2888 OF 2023

5.       This revision petition has been filed in challenge to the Order dated 09.02.2023  in  Appeal No. 123 of 2022  of the State Commission,  Delhi.     

6.       The petition has been filed with a reported delay of 140 days and admitted delay of 229 days.  As the delay does not appear to be insignificant, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is being heard first on the delay condonation application in order to decide whether there is any good ground to condone the delay or not. 

7.       Perused the record including inter alia the delay condonation application.

8.       Learned counsel has reiterated the submissions made in the delay condonation application.  It has been submitted that the free copy was not provided to the petitioner. It has been submitted that the certified copy of the impugned Order has not been filed along with the petition. It has also been submitted that the present counsel has been recently empanelled and appointed and, therefore, is not in a position to explain whether the certified copy was procured or not.  Submission is that initially the notice was not received by the petitioner in the proceedings of the complaint which took place at the District Commission’s level and, therefore, the matter was proceeded ex parte and was decided against the petitioner / opposite party. Thereafter the appeal was filed in the State Commission on its behalf but as the same was filed with delay, the State Commission did not find good grounds to condone the delay involved in the belated filing of the appeal as it did not find sufficient cause to condone the delay. The same, therefore, got dismissed on the point of limitation.  The present petition has been filed thereafter.  It has also been submitted that the complaint was filed without proper nomenclature of the petitioner and instead of impleading the ‘Indian Railways, Ministry of Railways through its Chairman, Government of India, Rail Bhawan’ it should have been ‘General Manager’ of the concerned zone.  It has been contended that it had been the reason why the notice was not received by the petitioner and the complaint got allowed ex parte against petitioner.  Further contention is that the delay caused in filing the present petition is because the copy of the impugned Order was not issued by the State Commission and the petitioner did not receive the same which resulted in the delay.  Submission is that the delay being neither intentional nor deliberate the same deserves to be condoned.    

5.       First of all it may be observed that in the ordinary course whenever the aspect of evaluating the sufficiency of cause behind the delayed filing of a given petition or appeal, as the case may be, is involved, it is advisable to adopt a liberal approach and not a pedantic one.  A pragmatic view needs to be adopted as it is found preferable to decide a case on its merits rather than to thwart the same at the threshold on the point of limitation.  But while saying so, it must not be misconstrued to mean that the approach to be adopted can ever be such which may reduce the law on the point of limitation, wherever it is provided, into insignificance as if it is inconsequential and does not signify anything.  The law of limitation wherever it is provided has a salutary purpose to serve which cannot be looked down with irreverence or with indifference.  The Courts, judicial or quasi-judicial as they may be, can never afford to ride roughshod over the solemn provisions of limitation wherever they have been laid down by the Legislature in its wisdom.  It is also to be kept in perspective that the failure to file a petition against a particular order and the failure to challenge the same within the prescribed period of time, often gives rise simultaneously to a right to the other side.  This is true that if valid reasons come forth and sufficient cause is shown which may go to vindicate the delayed filing of a petition, the same may be accepted and the delay may be condoned by the given Forum.   But this discretion conferred upon any Forum judicial or quasi-judicial as it may be, has to be exercised judiciously and in keeping with the norms.  The exercise of discretion in such matters is not the exercise of any prerogative or privilege.  It is essentially the exercise of a statutory power, granted by the Act, which has to be exercised judiciously and legally both.  While the delay of larger periods may be condoned in a given case if sufficient cause may be shown which resulted in the delay, on the other hand, a lesser period of delay may not be condoned if valid reasons showing sufficient cause are not brought forth by the defaulting party.  The onus to show and furnish the necessary factual or circumstantial basis which contributed to the delay, must be shown in order to earn the condonation and this onus is of the defaulting party who seeks such condonation.

6.   When we proceed to make an assessment regarding the validity of the reasons which have been proffered as an explanation with regard to the delayed filing of the petition we find that they fall far short of qualifying as good grounds on the basis of which we may condon the substantial delay involved in the matter.  So far as the said anomaly in the nomenclature is concerned it completely pales into insignificance as after the decision made by the District Commission, the appeal has already been filed before the State Commission after acquiring knowledge.  We are not discussing the merits of the case or the circumstances under which the matter was decided ex parte.  Even though prima facie we find that the submissions made by learned counsel in this regard are not very convincing or tenable but we would refrain to pass any comments upon the same as the stage to enter into the inherent merits of the matter would come only if we find it fit to condone the delay with which the present petition has been filed. 

7.   The submission with regard to the delayed filing of the present petition that has been pressed forth by the learned counsel about the non-supply of the free copy is a bald contention completely unsubstantiated by any record.

          It may be relevant in this context to mention that as per the Regulation 21 of The Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 if a Consumer / Party needs a certified copy and applied for the same it may be given on the payment of a nominal fee. But on the subsequently applied certified copy the concerned Commission is required to clearly mention on the certified copy so issued as to when the first / free copy of the impugned Order was dispatched or delivered to the applicant. It may be relevant to extract the Regulation 21 which reads as follows:

21. Certified copy. – (1) A copy of the final order is to be given to the parties free of costs as required under the Act and the rules made thereunder.

(2) In case a party requires an extra copy, it shall be issued to him duly certified by the Registry on a payment of rupees twenty irrespective of number of pages.

(3) A certified copy of an order shall clearly specify the date when free copy was issued, date of application, date when the copy was made ready and the date when it was so delivered to him.

          The statutory purpose which the afore-said regulation goes to serve is that it obviates the possibility of raising the false plea of belated acquisition of knowledge about the impugned Order.  Otherwise anybody can hide behind the false plea that he was never provided with the free copy of the Order. The duplicate certified copy would, whenever it is provided, must therefore contain the date when the earlier free copy was provided. 

8.       Now reverting back to the present matter, we find that the certified copy of the impugned Order has not been filed at all which could have been a definite check about the veracity of the contention that has been raised on behalf of the petitioner.  On the specific query raised as to whether the certified copy of the impugned Order was applied or not and if it was applied whether it was received or not and if it was received as to when it was received, learned proxy counsel, in all fairness, submits that as they have recently empaneled by the petitioner, he is not in a position to pass any comments upon what has been done by the previous counsels in this regard and as to what had been done on behalf of petitioner  if the free certified copy was not received.  We have gone through the delay condonation application carefully and find that there is absolutely no mention as to how the petitioner got information about the impugned Order and whether it had at all made any attempt to obtain the certified copy on its own or not.  The only thing which is apparent on the face of record is that certainly at some stage the petitioner did obtain knowledge of the impugned Order and did find it fit to file the revision petition against the same.  It was the onerous duty of the petitioner to explain as to when it did obtain knowledge about the impugned Order and how did it obtain it. In the absence of such information furnished we do not see any reason to doubt that the free copy which was supposed to be provided as a matter of course as per rules was not provided or furnished to the petitioner.  In the absence of proof to the contrary we have to proceed to presume the existence of a fact which we think likely to have happened regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business.  It appears that finding no better ground to explain, such kind of bald denial about the supply of the free copy has been made furnishing nothing further to substantiate its denial. Even the appeal that was filed by petitioner in the State Commission had also been dismissed on the point of limitation as the same was not filed within prescribed period of time.  The present petition too has been filed with significant delay without furnishing any sufficient cause for this default. It is true that while evaluating the sufficiency of cause we do not adopt a pedantic approach and always try to make due allowance keeping in perspective the pragmatic side of the working of an institution but that is by no means to suggest or imply that in the name of being a public sector or a government institution we can ever afford to grant such long leash to it which may eventually frustrate the very object and purpose of law of limitation wherever it is provided.  It appears that the law of limitation has been taken for granted and an indifferent attitude has been adopted as if the prescribed period of limitation which has been provided in the Act does not signify anything or as if it is nugatory which can be ignored at will.    

When a petition is filed beyond the period of limitation the onus to bring forth such factual and circumstantial basis is on the defaulting petitioner on the basis of which the delay may be condoned.  In the matter at hand the Bench feels constrained to observe that the petitioner has woefully failed to discharge that onus.  The delay condonation application does not contain even a semblance of good explanation to vindicate the delayed filing.  The application does not contain much worth and does not help the petitioner at all.  Being meritless the delay condonation application stands disallowed.

9.       Concomitantly the petition stands dismissed on limitation.

10.     The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to all parties in the petition and to the learned counsel for the petitioners. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.