Delhi

StateCommission

A/487/2018

DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHANTI DEVI & ORS - Opp.Party(s)

17 Oct 2019

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

 

Date of Hearing:17.10.2019

 

                                                                   Date of decision:22.10.2019

 

First Appeal No.487/2018

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF

 

Director of Education,

Directorate of Education,

Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi,

Old Secretariat,

New Delhi

 

Deputy Director of Education,

Directorate of Education,

Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi,

District West-A,

Karampura, New Delhi                                                    .…Appellant

 

VERSUS

 

Smt. Shanti Devi,

W/o Late Sh. N.S. Deswal,

R/o Flat No.14, Sector-23,

•  

 

Ravinder Deswal

S/o Late Sh. N.S. Deshwal,

R/o Flat No. 31,

M.C.D. Quarters, Nimri Colony,

Ashok Nagar, New Delhi-52

 

Asha Chaudhary,

D/o Late Sh. N.S. Deshwal,

R/o H.No. 1344, Sector-7,

Bahadurgarh, Haryana

 

Kusum Deswal,

D/o Late Sh. N.S. Deshwal,

R/o H.No. 14, Sector-23,

•                                                                     .…Respondent

 

HON’BLE  SH. ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER                            

 

 1.   Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                Yes     

 2.   To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                     Yes

 

                           Present:         Ms. Sapna Singh, Counsel for the appellant

                                                   Ms. Arti Anupriya, Counsel for the respondents

 

ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER

JUDGEMENT

1.             Aggrieved by the orders dated 02.01.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (North) in CC/583/2010 in the matter of Smt. Shanti Devi and ors versus Director of Education and another, directing the OPs to pay the amount of Rs. 72,806/- to the complainant’s as also the compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for the mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses, the Director of Education and another, OPs before the District Forum, have filed an appeal before this Commission, for short appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, the Act, against Smt. Shanti Devi & ors complainants before the District Forum, hereinafter referred to as respondents, alleging that the orders so passed are without appreciating the Govt. of India instructions issued from time to time and praying for setting aside the order.
2.             Facts of the case necessary for the disposal of the appeal are these.
3.             The complainant/respondents a pensioner and a CGHS beneficiary had submitted the medical bills for self and his wife to the OPs/appellant for reimbursement of Rs. 1,60,920/- which bills were remitted after undue deductions and payment was made only to the extent of Rs. 58,814/- leaving an amount of Rs. 1,02,114/- outstanding despite several efforts made by the complainant for reimbursement, leading to filing of a complaint before the District Forum which complaint having been allowed with a direction to the appellant/OPs, to pay the unpaid amount to the complainant/respondent, this appeal has been preferred on the ground that the forum failed to appreciate the fact that medical bills as submitted by the complainant were paid after proper examination by the competent authority.  Secondly, the Forum failed to appreciate that there was no deficiency of service on part of the appellant(s)/Department. Thirdly, the Forum did not appreciate that complainant had not impleaded Directorate of Health Services as party before the Forum which authority alone is final authority to approve the medical bill(s). Fourthly, the Forum has failed to appreciate that the rejection of the three bills was as per the guidelines of the Government. Fifth, the Forum failed to give any finding upon the plea of Directorate of Education that being a completely Govt. Department the respondent therein/appellant herein are not amenable to jurisdiction of the Forum. It is further submitted that the Government servant does not fall under the definition of a ‘consumer’ as defined under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Thus, in the instant matter, Consumer Forum is not the competent court.
4.             The respondents were noticed but they have not filed reply despite sufficient time having been allowed.
5.             This appeal was listed before this Commission on 17.10.2019 when the counsel for both sides appeared and advanced their arguments, the appellant for acceptance of the appeal, the order of the forum having been passed without appreciating the Govt. of instructions issued from time to time the respondents for dismissal of the appeal both on the ground of limitation and on merit. I have perused the records of the case and given a careful consideration to the subject matter.
6.             On a careful perusal of the appeal and shorn of superfluities it is noticed that the appeal having been filed on 15.11.2018 assailing the orders passed on 02.01.2018 is hopelessly time barred, relying on, Section 15 of the Act. The said provision of the Act posits that the orders of the District Forum are assailable before the State Commission if filed within a period of 30 days provided the State Commission may at its discretion entertain the appeal filed beyond the period of 30 days if there exists sufficient reasons for the delay.  The Appellant has also filed an application for condonation of delay.  I have perused the application.  The delay is substantial but the grounds taken by the Appellant for condonation of delay are only to the extent that for filing of appeal approval of various Department was required.  This ground does not satisfy me at all. 
7.           As per the provisions contained under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the order of the District Forum are to be assailed before the State Commission within 30 days.  The said provision of the Act posits as under:

 

“15. Appeal.—Any person aggrieved by an order made by the District Forum may prefer an appeal against such order to the State Commission within a period of thirty days from the date of the order, in such form and manner as may be prescribed:

 

Provided that the State Commission may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within that period:

 

1[Provided further that no appeal by a person, who is required to pay any amount in terms of an order of the District Forum, shall be entertained by the State Commission unless the appellant has deposited in the prescribed manner fifty per cent. of that amount or twenty-five thousand rupees, whichever is less.]"

 

8.             The Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the matter of Prem Prakash Goel vs. Green Carriers and Contractors (Delhi) Pvt. Ltd. as reported in II (2014) CPJ 22 (NC) is pleased to hold that the fragile explanation for the condonation of delay does not ring the bell.  Day to day explanation not having been furnished the delay cannot be condoned. The Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in yet another matter, in the matter of Central Bank of India vs.  Ayodha Prasad Awasthi as reported in I (2015) CPJ 712 (NC) is pleased to observe that specific periods have been prescribed for filing of appeal and revision petitions under the law to ensure that fruits of awards or decree are not unduly delayed to successful litigation.  Cogent explanation is to be given in support of each request for condonation of delay.  Petitioner failed to explain the delay satisfactorily so as to constitute sufficient cause.  Delay was not condoned.  
9.           The Hon’ble NCDRC in the FA-10/2015 in the matter of K.M. Anbarasan vs. M/s Tata AIG Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and ors. decided on 30.01.2015, while declining to condone the delay is pleased to observe as under:-

 It is well settled that “sufficient cause” for condoning the delay in each case is a question of fact.

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.”

Similarly, in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kailash Devi & Ors. AIR 1994 Punjab and Haryana 45, it has been laid down that;

“There is no denying the fact that the expression sufficient cause should normally be construed liberally so as to advance substantial justice but that would be in a case where no negligence or inaction or want of bona fide is imputable to the applicant. The discretion to condone the delay is to be exercised judicially i.e. one of is not to be swayed by sympathy or benevolence.”

In  R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, 2009 (2) Scale 108, Supreme Court 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.” 

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) has laid down that;

“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.”

Decision of Anshul Aggarwal (supra) has been reiterated in Cicily Kallarackal Vs. Vehicle Factory, IV (2012) CPJ 1(SC) 1, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court observed;

  This Court in Anshul Aggarwal v. NOIDA, (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) has explained the scope of condonation of delay in a matter where the special Courts/Tribunals have been constituted in order to provide expeditious remedies to the person aggrieved and Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is one of them. Therefore, this Court held that while dealing with the application for condonation of delay in such cases the Court must keep in mind the special period of limitation prescribed under the statute (s).

  In the instant case, condoning such an inordinate delay without any sufficient cause would amount to substituting the period of limitation by this Court in place of the period prescribed by the Legislature for filing the special leave petition. Therefore, we do not see any cogent reason to condone the delay.

 Hence, in the facts and circumstance of the case as explained hereinabove, we are not inclined to entertain these petitions. The same are dismissed on the ground of delay.”

10.             In this view of the matter and the legal position having been explained and finally having not been satisfied with the reasons furnished for the condonation of the delay, the said delay is not condoned and once the delay is not condoned, the appeal FA-487/2018 filed by Director of Education and ors, praying for setting aside the orders passed by the District Forum, impugned in the appeal, by implication, stands dismissed.
11.             Ordered accordingly.
12.             A copy of this order be forwarded to the parties to the case free of cost as is statutorily required. A copy of this order be forwarded to the District Forum for information and records. File be consigned to records.

 

 

(Anil Srivastava)​

Member