Haryana

StateCommission

A/476/2016

UHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

PAMILA - Opp.Party(s)

ALKA JOSHI

29 Aug 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

First Appeal No.476 of 2016

Date of Institution:26.05.2016

Date of decision:29.08.2017

 

1. The Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, through its XEN, Sub-Division, Rohtak.
2. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sub-Division, Sampla, District Rohtak.

 

…Appellants

Versus

 

1.      Smt. Pamila @ Neetu W/o Shri Rajbir S/o Shri Sheesh Ram, R/o Village Badhoj, District Rewari.

2.      Rajbir S/oShri Sheesh Ram, R/o Village Badhoj, District Rewari.

…Respondents

 

CORAM:   Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.
                   Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.

 

Present:-    Mrs.Alka Joshi, Advocate counsel for the appellants.

                   None for the respondents.

                                      O R D E R

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

            Alongwith the appeal, appellant has filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act (in short “Act”)  for condonation of delay of  221 days wherein,  it is alleged that  after passing of the order dated 15.09.2005, the matter was referred to Legal Branch of UHBVN for opinion for filing of the present appeal.   Legal Branch took sufficient time to decide about filing of appeal.  Thereafter appellants  contacted the present counsel to file the appeal.   In  this  process  220 days were consumed (as in application). Thus, delay of 221 days in filing of the present appeal be condoned.

2.         Arguments Heard. File perused.

3.         Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that as per facts mentioned above, it is clear that delay in filing appeal is not intentional.  The time was consumed in taking opinion from one person and another.  Sometime in consumed in movement of file from one official to another, so the delay may be condoned. 

4.         This argument is not avail.  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 221 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”.

6.      Taking into consideration the pleas raised by appellant in the application for condonation of delay and settled principle of law, this Commission does not find it a fit case to condone delay of 221 days in filing of the appeal. Hence application filed for condonation of delay  is dismissed in limine.

7       Resultantly, this appeal is hereby dismissed as time barred in limine.

8.      The statutory amount of Rs.25000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

 

August 29th, , 2017	Urvashi Agnihotri Member		R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member
S.K