Haryana

StateCommission

A/1244/2017

UHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAM RATTAN - Opp.Party(s)

B.S. NEGI

12 Apr 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                                               

                                                         First Appeal No.1244 of 2017

                                                Date of Institution: 17.10.2017

                                                        Date of decision: 12.04.2023

 

 

1. Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. through its Chairman, Shakti Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula.
2. Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. through its XEN Urban Division, Gohana Road, Panipat.
3. Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. through its SDO, Sub Urban Sub Division, Israna District Panipat.

…..Appellants

Versus

Ram Rattan Son of Sh. Telu Ram, resident of village and Post Office Sutana Tehsil Madlaudha, Distt. Panipat.

•  

CORAM:    S.P.Sood, Judicial  Member

         

Present:-    Mr. B.S. Negi, Advocate alongwith Pankaj, Advocate for theappellants.

                   Ms. Amrita Nagpal, Advocate for the respondent.

 

                                                ORDER

S P SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          There is a delay of 140 days in filing the present appeal. Appellant has filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act (in short “Act”)  for condonation of delay of  140 days wherein,  it is alleged that  due to administrative procedure for obtaining opinion for filing appeal and for seeking sanction from higher authorities delay of  140 days have occurred in filing this appeal. The delay in filing the appeal was neither intentional nor wilful but due to the reasons mentioned above. Thus, delay of 140 days in filing of the present appeal may please 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 was not intentional.    He further argued that due to administrative procedure for obtaining opinion for filing appeal and seeking sanction from higher authorities delay of  140 days has occurred and the same may be condoned. 

4.      This argument of appellant cannot be considered because in the application for condonation of delay the appellants have not given any date on which certified copy was received and then when exactly the file was referred to higher authorities for seeking approval for filing of appeal, on which date the UHBVNL had granted necessary approval for this and thereafter when the file was sent to Legal Cell, UHBVNL, Panchkula for engaging counsel. All the details were concealed  by the appellants before this Commission. There was no justification in waiting for 140 days in filing the present appeal.  A period of 30 days as per the old Act has been provided for filing an appeal against the order of the District Commission. 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 was “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 140 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 Chief Post Master General &Ors Versus Living Media India Ltd. &Anr. 2021 (3) SCC 563 it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme court:-

“12. It is not in dispute that the person (s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this court.  They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings.  In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us.  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 bonafide, 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.

13.    In our view, it is the right time to inform all the Government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities and 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 Government departments.  The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few.  Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay.  Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay.

14. In view of our conclusion on issue (a), there is no need to go into the merits of the issues (b) and (c ).  The question of law raised is left open to be decided in an appropriate case. In the light of the above discussion, the appeals fail and are dismissed on the ground of delay. No order as to costs.

Appeal dismissed.”

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.  RewaCoalfields  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.”

         

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 140 days in filing of the appeal. Hence, the delay application filed by the appellants is dismissed.

7.      Briefly stated, facts as per thecomplaintgoes like that complainant got installed an electric tubewell connection bearing old account No. BS-2-47 in the name of uncle of Amar Singh in the agriculture land of the complainant.  Amar Singh has expired about 12 years ago. One transformer was installed in the land of the complainant.  The electricity wire drawn for the  tubewell were crossing over the agriculture land in a precarious manner of the complainant.  He requested the Ops to repair the loose wireshanging over the agriculture land of the complainant but all in vain.  He has sown wheat crop in 2.4 acres of land  and has spent Rs.20,000/- for this crop.  Due to loose wires sparking took place which fell on the wheat crop and ignited fire and his entire crop got burnt. Rapat/NCR NO.249/2015 was lodged on 09.04.2015. The Deputy Director Agriculture inspected his fields and submitted their report vide letter No.965 dated 12.05.2015.  This is howcomplainant  suffereda loss of Rs.1,16,200/- due to burning of his wheat crop. Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, hence the complaint.

8.      Upon notice, Opposite parties filed reply. It was submitted that  electricity connection No.BS-247 was the name of Amar Singh.  It was wrong that complainant was user of the said connection. There was no connection in the name of the complainant, therefore, later was not a consumer qua the Ops.   The electric wires were properly maintained by the Ops. The burning of the crop of the complainant on 09.04.2015 was not due to electric sparking.  Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.      After hearing both the parties, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panipat (Now In short “District Commission”) allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 24.04.2017, which is as under:-

“So in view of aforementioned findings and observations we accept the present complaint and direct the Ops to make the payment of Rs.82,500/- to the complainant on account of damages to the wheat crop of the complainant.  The complainant shall also be entitled for a sum of Rs.3300/- for litigation expenses. The OPs are further directed to make the compliance of this order within a period of thirty days jointly and severally.”

10.    Feeling aggrieved therefrom, OPs-appellants have preferred this appeal.

11.    The argument was advanced by Sh.B.S.Negi Advocate alongwith Mr. Pankaj, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Ms.Amrita Nagpal, Advocate for the respondents.  With their kind assistance entire record of appeal including documentary evidence as well as whatever evidence had been led during the proceedings of the complaint has also been properly perused and examined.

12.    It is not disputed that complainant happens to be a member of the joint family.Further it is true that an application was moved by complainant to the Deputy Director, Agriculture for assessing the loss to his wheat crop due to fire which broke out due to short circuit in the electric wires passing over his fields. It is also not disputed that a team was constituted to inspect the crop belonging to complainant. The team of agriculture department inspected the fields of the complainant and found  2.1/4 acre of wheat crop of complainant had burnt due to fire. The inspection report mentioned that burning of wheat crop of the complainant was due to short circuiting of electric wires.   Perusal of copy of Jamabandi and mutation also reflects that complainant was the owner and cultivaterof the land, where fire incident had taken place due to short circuit in the electric wires.   The case laws relied upon by the counsel for the respondent titled  SukaBhillaThellariVs.Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. 2011 (4) CPJ 95 and Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. And Ors. Vs.Gurjant Singh, Law Finder Doc ID#1894951 are relevant and applicable because the facts and circumstances of the case are similar to that of the present case. The learned District Commission has rightly allowed the complaint of the complainant.

13.    Resultantly, the contentions raised on behalf of the present appellant stands rejected as rendered no assistance and found to be untenable and the order passed by the learned District Commission does not suffer from any illegality or perversity and is well reasoned and accordingly stands maintained for all intents and purposes.  Hence, appeal  stands dismissed on delay as well as on merits.

14.              Applications pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.

15.              A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.

16.              File be consigned to record room.

 

April12th, 2023                                                                S.P.Sood

                                                                                       Judicial Member                       

S.K(Pvt. Secy.)