Punjab

StateCommission

FA/1205/2013

P.S.P.C.L. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sardara Singh - Opp.Party(s)

Jaswinder Singh Randhawa

13 Feb 2015

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

 

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION, PUNJAB, SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.

 

First Appeal No.1205 of 2013

 

                                                Date of Institution :  07.11.2013.

                             Date of Decision   :  13.02.2015.

 

1.       Punjab State Power Corporation Limited/ PSEB through its         Chairman, The Mall, Patiala.

2.       Senior Executive Engineer, Zirakpur, Distt. SAS Nagar.

3.       J.E., PSEB, Zirakpur, Distt. SAS Nagar.

                                                     …..Appellants/opposite parties.

Versus

 

Sardara Singh S/o Sh. Joginder Singh R/o Village Kurari, Tehsil & District SAS Nagar.

                                                     ….Respondent/complainant

    

Appeal against order dated 12.12.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, SAS Nagar, Mohali.

 

 

Application for condonation of delay of 662 days in filling the appeal.

 

Quorum:-

 

     Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

             Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member.   

Present:-

 

     For the appellants            :     Sh. J.S. Randhawa, Advocate

     For the respondent          :     Sh. Ashok Bhardwaj, Advocate   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

J. S. KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

M.A. No.2056 of 2013                                            

                    This order shall dispose of this application filed by the appellant/applicant for condonation of delay of 662 days in filing the appeal in this case. It is alleged in this application that the order under challenge in this appeal was passed by the District forum SAS Nagar Mohali, on 12.12.2011. That the delay of 662 days in filing the appeal took place on account of misguidance on the part of counsel for the appellant/applicant before District Forum. The officials of the applicant Department undoubtedly admitted before the District Forum that the respondent in this appeal deposited the amount of Rs.1,61,477/- with the Department. That when this fact came to the notice of department, the official of the department brought it to the notice of the counsel in execution proceedings, accordingly. The counsel before District Forum did not guide them properly to file the appeal after knowing the above fact. The complaint of the respondent of this appeal was accepted by District Forum on the ground that amount has been deposited with the Department by him. It was further averred that on account improper guidance of the counsel of the applicant before District Forum, the above referred delay of 662 days took place in filing this appeal. That the complainant would not have succeeded in this case before District Forum, had the fact of non deposit of the amount by the complainant been discovered earlier? That the applicant could have performed its duty only when the respondent of this case would have deposited the amount for installation. The officials of the applicant Department made the statement before District Forum regarding the deposit of the amount by complainant. On the above referred premise, the applicant prayed for condonation of 662 days in filing the appeal.

2.                Notice of this application was issued to the respondent in this application/appeal. The respondent filed reply to this application and contested it stoutly. It was averred in reply, that the applicant has not approached the Commission with clean hands and rather suppressed the material facts and application deserves outright dismissal on that score. That respondent of this appeal has been running from pillar to post to seek enhancement of his electric supply since 1992, but he has been denied it without any reason by the applicants. The respondent has been dragged into litigation by the applicants unnecessarily. That any party, who suppressed the material fact, is not entitled to seek the indulgence of the Forum. That the applicants have not filed any complaint against the counsel before District Forum regarding wrong advice, nor there is any document on the record regarding proceeding against the above counsel by the applicants before Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana. Even power of attorney of counsel has not been withdrawn till now by the applicants and the same counsel is still pursuing the execution proceedings of the applicants before District Forum. That it can be inferred that applicants are misleading the Commission. That the motor of the respondent was not running because of the trip due to low voltage in the power. That local commissioner was appointed, who submitted the report that motor of the respondent in this application was not running due to low voltage. That applicants have taken different stands, even the merits of the case were pleaded in the reply, which were not required to be detailed in this application. It was further averred that applicants have not produced any document to prove their claim to any amount from the respondent in this application. That each days delay is required to be explained by the applicants before his application for condonation of delay can be granted on the basis of sufficient ground alone.

3.                We have heard the counsel for the parties and have also examined the record of the case. Order passed by the District Forum dated 12.12.2011 has been challenged in this appeal. The instant appeal has been filed by the applicants/appellants before this Commission on 07.11.2013. The instant appeal has been filed after lapse of 662 days. Now the ground taken by the applicants seeking condonation of delay is that their counsel in the lower court has mis-guided them regarding the fact of filing the appeal. We are not convinced with this submission of applicants/appellants in this case at all. The applicant is a large institution and it has number of its panelled lawyers and it could seek legal assistance easily from them. The applicants are not supposed to sit over the matter for near about 2 years. Now they have suddenly taken this plea that their officials made the statement wrongly regarding deposit of the amount and statement was made in District Forum and counsel has not properly guided them. It is not convincing that the Department would sit over this matter for near about 2 years and would not look into this matter at all. Even no document has been showed to us regarding filing any complaint against the counsel for his deliberate mis-guidance to the applicants on the record. The respondent has taken specific plea in the reply that the same counsel is still prosecuting their executing proceedings on behalf of applicants/appellants before the District Forum. There is nothing on the record to establish that any departmental action has been taken against any official for making false statement before District Forum.

4.                We find that the decree holder (DH) now the respondent in this application has filed the execution application before District Forum on 02.03.2012. Reply to this application was filed by the judgment debtors (JDs) now appellants/applicants in this case on 10.07.2012 thereat. They resisted this execution application by filing reply on 10.07.2012 by taking the plea that complainant never deposited a sum of Rs.1,61,477/- with them. The applicants/appellants have specifically pleaded this fact on 10.07.2012 before District Forum in executing proceedings that complainant has not deposited this amount even after lapse of time and this fact was not earlier in their notice and it came to their notice prior 10.07.2012. Even then the instant appeal could have been filed within 30 days period by the appellants from 10.07.2012, when this fact of non deposit of the amount by the complainant now respondent in this case specifically came to their notice. We find that the instant appeal has been filed on 07.11.2013 after more than 1 year and 4 months even thereafter counting from above 10.07.2012. This is gross negligence of the appellants. The law of limitation operates rigorously. Consumer Protection Act is a special Act, enacted to redress the grievance of the parties in an expeditious  and summary manner. A special period of limitation has been prescribed it to file the appeal. We are not convinced with the sufficiency of the grounds pleaded in this case by applicants that condonation of delay in filing the appeal, is justified. Even the fact regarding the non deposit of the amount was very much in the knowledge of all the applicants/appellants even prior to 10.07.2012, as per reply filed by them in the execution application. Yet they slumbered over this matter for 1 year and 4 months even thereafter.  Thus Apex Court has held in case of the Chief Post Master General and others versus  Living Media India Limited and anothers reported in AIR 2012, SC-1506 that unless government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities 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 point 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 to the public departments. The public bodies are not exempted from the rigor of law of limitation. It applies equally to all. We find that when this fact already was in the knowledge of the applicants/appellants even prior 10.07.2012, that the amount has not been deposited by the complainant, even then they took no action promptly to file the appeal thereafter. Even thereafter the delay of 1 year and 4 months took place for which, there is no explanation at all with the applicants/appellants. The submission of counsel for the applicants/appellants that the merits of the case have to be considered in condoning the delay is not acceptable to us. The public bodies are supposed to be responsible in discharge of their duties to the public. No indulgence can be shown to them. Consequently, the applicants/appellants have failed to explain each days delay with sufficient cause to seek condonation of delay.

5.                In view of out above discussions, we do not find any merit in this application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal with 662 days inordinate delay and the same is hereby dismissed.

Main Case :

6.                Since the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal of the appellants has been dismissed. Hence, the appeal is barred by time and same is also dismissed in limine.

7.                The appellants had deposited the amount of Rs.1000/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the complainant now respondent in this appeal by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.

8.                The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

                                                                          (J. S. KLAR)

                                                             PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                       

                                                                   (VINOD KUMAR GUPTA)

                                                                              MEMBER

 

February 13 , 2015.                                                                                   

(MM)