Haryana

StateCommission

A/1116/2017

STATE OF HARYANA - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAM PIARI - Opp.Party(s)

M.P. GODARA

08 May 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

         

         

First Appeal No.       1116 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. Ram Piari wife of late Shri Krishan, resident of House No.20, Ward No.6, Mahabir Mohalla, Bara Pana, Kalanaur, 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

                     Respondent ex parte

 

                                                   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 January 16^th, 2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (for short, ‘District Forum’) whereby complaint filed by Smt. Ram Piari-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 observed that the opposite parties shall pay the claim amount under Rajiv Gandhi Parivar Bima Yojana to the complainant on account of death of her husband namely Krishan Kumar.  As such, it is directed that the opposite parties shall pay the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant within one month from the date of decision failing which the opposite parties shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum on the awarded amount from the date of decision.  Complaint is allowed accordingly.”

2.      Notice issued to the respondent-complainant received back duly served through Process Serving Agency of District Forum but none appeared on behalf of the respondent-complainant. The respondent-complainant is proceeded ex parte.

3.      The appellants filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of 218 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.727 dated 07.03.2017 that the complaint has been decided by the ld. District Forum on 16.01.2017.  Thereafter, this office sent a letter 10.03.2017 vide memo No.486-488 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.

3.      That the Legal Remembrancer, Haryana vide his letter No.6244-48 dated 05.04.2017 requested the Deputy District Attorney, Rohtak with a copy endorsed Additional Chief Secretary Haryana, Director, Haryana and this office requested that the case be sent after taking opinion of District Attorney, Rohtak with a subsequent reminder on 19.05.2017 vide letter No.10231-32.

4.      That the Deputy District Attorney vide letter No.1979-80 dated 16.06.2017 with the opinion of District Attorney opined that the present case is not fit for filing appeal before the appellate court and stated that the limitation for filing appeal is going to expire on 18.02.2017.

5.      Thereafter this office has requested the Director vide memo No.1275-76 dated 14.07.2017 in reference to Legal Remembrance office No.12095 dated 13.06.2017 requesting that an appeal may be filed in this case at the earliest.  However, it was also intimated that the Deputy District Attorney, Rohtak has opined vide his letter No.1979-80 that this case is not fit for filing appeal with a copy endorsed to L.R. Haryana.

6.      Thereafter Director Social Justice and Empowerment Haryana, Chandigarh directed this office vide letter no.16856 dated 28.07.2017 that in this case an appeal be filed after vetting from Advocate General, Haryana against the order passed by District Consumer Forum, Rohtak.

7.      That delay in filing in appeal has been caused due to the grounds mentioned above.  The same is beyond the control of the appellant and is not intentional one.”

4.      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.

5.      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.

6.      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:-

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 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.”

9.        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.

10.    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 218 days. Hence, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed.

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

12.    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