Haryana

StateCommission

A/703/2016

STATE OF HARYANA - Complainant(s)

Versus

PREM ALIAS PREM LATA - Opp.Party(s)

GOVT.PLEADER

30 Aug 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      703 of 2016

Date of Institution:      01.08.2016

Date of Decision :       30.08.2016

 

1.      State of Haryana through Collector, Rohtak.

2.      Sub Divisional Magistrate/Civil, Rohtak.

3.      District Social Welfare Officer, Mini Secretariat, Rohtak.

                             Appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 to 3

 

Versus

 

 

 

 

1.      Smt. Prem @ Prem Lata wife of late Sh. Krishan son of Sh. Udey Singh, resident of Village Mokhra Khas, Tehsil Meham, District Rohtak.

Respondent/Complainant

2.      The New India Insurance Company Limited through its Divisional Manager, Rohtak.

                                      Respondents/Opposite Party No.4

 

 

 

CORAM:             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member                      

 

Present:              Shri Ashok Pasricha, Deputy Advocate General for appellants.   

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

State of Haryana through Collector, Rohtak and others -Opposite Parties No.1 to 3, are in appeal against the order dated March 16^th, 2009 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Complaint No.205 of 2007.

2.      On 21.04.2005, Krishan husband of Smt. Prem alias Prem Lata died in an accident. He was the only bread earner of his family.  The complainant applied for compensation under Ch. Devi Lal Jan Suraksha Bima Yojna (Devi Rakshak) by completing all the formalities.  The appellants rejected the same on the ground that the deceased was not head of the family as per Ration Card.  The complainant filed complaint before the District Forum.

3.      Opposite parties contested the complaint denying their liability.  

4.      On appraisal of the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum vide impugned order allowed complaint issuing directions as under:-

“Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case we have come to the conclusion that complaint is tenable.   Accordingly, we hereby allow the complaint with direction to the opposite party No.1 to pay the claim amount of Rs.1,00,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint till its realization and Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant maximum within one month from the date of decision failing which the amount of award shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. from 16.04.09 onwards till its realization to the complainant.”

5.      There is delay of 2662 days in filing of the appeal, the condonation of which has been sought by the appellants by filing an application.

6.      The ground taken for condonation of delay given in the application is as under:-

“2.     That the case was processed at various levels and necessary opinion and approval of the authorities were taken.  L.R. instruction for filing the present appeal have been issued on 27.05.2015 which were received in this office on 06.07.16.  Time was consumed in fulfilling the administrative exigencies and the delay of 656 days in filing the present appeal is not intentional but due to administrative requirements and is bonafide.” 

7.      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.”

8.      In Pundlik Jalam Patil (dead) by LRS vs. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project and Another, (2008) 17 SC 448, Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:-

“…The evidence on record suggests neglect of its own right for long time in preferring appeals. The court cannot enquire into belated and stale claims on the ground of equity. Delay defeats equity. The court helps those who are vigilant and “do not slumber over their rights”.

9.      In Postmaster General and Ors. v. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr., (2012) 3 SCC 563, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to observe as under :

"28.Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody, including the Government.

29. In our view, it is 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 bona fide 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 the Government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few."

10.    The grounds taken in the application are a sad commentary on the working of the officials 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 2662. Hence, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed.

11.    In view of the above, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed on the ground of limitation.

12.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced: 30.08.2016

(Urvashi Agnihotri) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

UK