1.      The present revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, challenging the order dated 9.2.2006 in F.A. No. 2659/2005 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana (hereinafter referred to as “the State Commission”).  By the impugned order, the appeal filed against the order dated 16.9.2005 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kaithal in Complaint Case No. 376/03 has been dismissed along with the application seeking condonation of delay for 57 days in filing the appeal.

2.      The brief facts of the case are that the complainants are agriculturalists, using tube wells to irrigate their agricultural land. The Complainants have electricity connection for running their tube wells. The electric Consumer A/C No. of Complainant No. 1 is D-219-AP and Complainant No. 2 is D-247-AP in village Simla. The complainants are consumers of electricity supplied by O.P. No. 1. It is the case of the complainants that there was a newly installed transformer in the fields of the complainants, installed in the name of Mewa at Village Simla. The new transformer replaced 100KVA transformer as the complainants were facing voltage problem on account of overloading. The newly installed transformer was used to supply electricity to the complainants and Mr. Pale Ram. It is stated in the complaint that the latter is posted in the Army as Major and that is the reason why he could not be impleaded as complainant.  It is the case of the complainants that the O.P. Nos. 2 to 4 in collusion with O.P. No.5 used to switch off the electricity supply to the complainant’s tube wells from the transformer to cause irreparable loss and damage to the crops of the complainants. Due to the act of the O.Ps., the complainants were unable to run their tube well and irrigate their fields.

3.      Aggrieved by the conduct of the O.Ps., the complainant approached the District Forum by filing consumer complaint. The District Forum vide order dated 16.9.2005 held as follows:-

“11. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the respondents No. 1 and 2 are deficient on their part. One, who is deficient, should suffer. The complainants should have not suffer at the hands of respondents. A transformer which was duly sanctioned by the competent authority of respondents should not removed  of political vendetta. The respondents are supposed to be fair and impartial while performing their duties. When other consumers are consuming electricity from Urban Feeder, how the complainants are not entitled for the same benefit. The respondents No.1 and 2 are directed to install the transformer of 63KVA which was in the name of Mewa Singh and from which the complainants were drawing electricity on 12.1.2004. The respondents No. 1 and 2 are also directed to ensure regular supply of electricity to the complainants from that installed transformer. Complaint is accepted. No order as to costs. Compliance of the order shall be made within 30 days from the date on order. Parties be informed accordingly and file be consigned to the record-room after due compliance”. 

4.      Aggrieved by the said order, the O.Ps., preferred an appeal before the State Commission along with an application seeking condonation of delay for 57 days in filing the appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The State Commission vide order dated 9.2.2006 held that the application seeking condonation of delay is meritless and dismissed the same. Consequently, the appeal filed by the O.P. was also dismissed.

5.      Aggrieved by the said order, the O.P. has approached this Commission by way of the present petition.

6.    Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused record. Respondent has been proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 28.11.2016 of this Commission.

7.      The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the delay of 57 days had occurred in filing the appeal before the State Commission due to the fact that copy of the order was received late and then there was inter-departmental consultation for filing the appeal, which took some time.  The case of the petitioner is very strong on merits and therefore, State Commission should have condoned the delay in filing the appeal, which was inadvertent and without any intention to harass the complainant.  The order of the District Forum dated 16.09.2005 is against the rules of the Electricity Board and the District Forum had ordered beyond the prayers made in the complaint.  The prayer in the complaint has been mentioned as follows:-

“(i)  the respondent/opposite party may kindly be directed to not to switch of the electricity supply to the tubewells of the complainant from the transformer.  The complainants have paid the bills of electricity.

(ii)  The opposite party is also liable to pay the costs to the complainant party.

(iii)   any other relief to which the complainants are found entitled may also be granted.”

8.   The learned counsel argued that such prayers are beyond the mandate of the District Forum.Learned counsel further pointed out that against the prayer in the complaint, the District Forum has also ordered the following in its order dated 16.09.2005:-

“The respondents are supposed to be fair and impartial while performing their duties.  When other consumers are consuming electricity from Urban Feeder, how the complainants are not entitled for the same benefit.  The respondents No.1 and 2 are directed to install the transformer of 63 KVA which was in the name of Mewa Singh and from which the complainants were drawing electricity on 12.1.2004.  The respondents No.1 and 2 are also directed to ensure the regular supply of electricity to the complainants from that installed transformer.”

9.    It was pointed out by the learned counsel that the Electricity Board installs the transformers as per its own policy and even if some consumers are taking electricity from the urban feeder, the other consumers have no right to insist upon taking electricity from the urban feeder. Moreover, rostering of electricity is a common phenomenon and District Forum cannot order continuous supply of electricity to the complainants. It becomes, thus, clear that the order of the District Forum suffered from many infirmities and illegalities and therefore, petitioner has every right to challenge this order on merits.  From this point of view, the technical objection of delay should not have come in the way of imparting justice on merits. 

10.    We have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have thoroughly examined the record.  As the District Forum has allowed the continuance of the electric connection of the complainant on the urban feeder and the opposite party is claiming it to be against the policy of the Electricity Board of the State Government, the matter needs to be adjudicated at the appellate stage.  As the appeal has been dismissed on the ground of limitation alone, the petitioner has not got any opportunity to put forward his case on merits before the appellate authority.  Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and Others.,  (2013) 12 SCC 649, has laid down  the following:-    

        21.       “From the aforesaid authorities (case laws referred) the principles that can broadly be culled out are:

21.1. (i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented, non- pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice.

     21.2.       (ii) The terms “sufficient cause” should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact- situation.

      21.3.    (iii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis.

       21.4.   (iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of.

       21.5   (v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact.

          21.6.   (vi) It is to be kept in mind that adherence to strict proof should not affect public justice and cause public mischief because the courts are required to be vigilant so that in the ultimate eventuate there is no real failure of justice.

          21.7 (vii) The concept of liberal approach has to encapsule the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play.

21.8   (viii) There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants strict approach whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation.

21.9  (ix) The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach.

21.10 (x) If the explanation offered is concocted or the grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face such a litigation.

21.11.  (xi)  It is to be borne in mind that no one gets away with fraud, misrepresentation or interpolation by taking recourse to the technicalities of law of limitation.

21.12. (xii) The entire gamut of facts are to be carefully scrutinized and the approach should be based on the paradigm of judicial discretion which is founded on objective reasoning and not on individual perception.

21.13. (xiii) The State or a public body or an entity representing a collective cause should be given some acceptable latitude.

22.  To the aforesaid principles we may add some more guidelines taking note of the present day scenario. They are:

22.1. (a) An application for condonation of delay should be drafted with careful concern and not in a half hazard manner harbouring the notion that the courts are required to condone delay on the bedrock of the principle that adjudication of a lis on merits is seminal to justice dispensation system.

22.2. (b) An application for condonation of delay should not be dealt with in a routine manner on the base of individual philosophy which is basically subjective.

22.3. (c) Though no precise formula can be laid down regard being had to the concept of judicial discretion, yet a conscious effort for achieving consistency and collegiality of the adjudicatory system should be made as that is the ultimate institutional motto.

22.4. (d) The increasing tendency to perceive delay as a non- serious matter and, hence, lackadaisical propensity can be exhibited in a non-challant manner requires to be curbed, of course, within legal parameters.”

11.    Based on the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above case and also looking at the fact that the petitioner has not got opportunity of presenting his case on merits before the State Commission in appeal, we deem it appropriate to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the State Commission with cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the respondent/Complainant.

12.    Based on the above discussion, the revision petition is allowed and the order dated 09.02.2006 of the State Commission is set aside.  The matter is remanded back to the State Commission for deciding the appeal on merits after giving opportunity of both the parties of presenting their case.  The cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) be paid by the petitioner to the complainant before or on the date fixed for appearance before the State Commission.  Parties to appear before the State Commission on 24.05.2017 .