Delhi

StateCommission

A/134/2016

BHARTI AIRTEL LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SIDHHARTH DUTTA - Opp.Party(s)

RAMNISH KHANNA

10 Jan 2017

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

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

                                           

                                                                                                       Date of Arguments: 10.01.17

     Date of Decision:12.01.17

 

First Appeal No. 134/2016

 

In the matter of:

Bharti Airtel Ltd.

Airtel Centre

Second Floor, Plot No. 16

Udyog Vihar, Phase-4

Gurgaon-122015

Through its Sr. Manager-Legal

Shri Amit Bhatia                                                                                                                              …….Appellant

 

                                                                                Versus

                                                                                                                   

Shri Sidhharth Dutta

Office-27, Lawyers’ Chamber

Supreme Court of India

Tilak Marg, New Delhi-110001.                                                                                                 ……..Respondent

 

CORAM

                                                                                                                          ………..Respondent

O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

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

Yes.

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

                                                         

JUDGEMENT

 

            This order will dispose of an application for condonation of delay moved by the appellant. The plea of the appellant is that order was reserved on 06.08.14 but the same was pronounced on 24.11.15.  Copy of the order was received at Regd. Office in Vasant Kunj by speed post on 05.01.16.  The same was forwarded to Delhi Circle office situated at Gurgaon.  Then the same was sent to Lawyers’ office for taking requisite steps so that matter could be appealed. There was delay of few days in tracing subscriber enrolment form of respondents as the same was stored in a warehouse hired by the appellant. There was few days delay due to the fact that authorized signatory was not readily available for signing the appeal, applications and affidavits.  The appellant being a publicly listed corporate entity had rightly controlled financial policy which require multiple signatory for any payment to be made.  FDR was required to be prepared for filing appeal.  That caused some delay.  The delay took place due to aforesaid bonafide reasons which was beyond the control of appellant. Balance of inconvenience is in favour of appellant.  It will suffer reparable loss and injury unless the impugned order is set aside and appellant is granted an opportunity to contest the case.  Hence this application for condonation of 70 days delay in filing the appeal.

2.        Impugned order is dated 24.11.15.  The appeal has been filed on 04.03.16.  Perusal of he impugned order reveals that OP did not file any reply and its defence was stuck of. 

3.        The respondent has opposed the application by filing a reply.  The appellant decided to file appeal after it was served with notice dated 16.02.16 by the respondent for complying the order of district consumer forum.

4.        The respondent has relied upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Basawaraj and Ors vs. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer (2013) 14 SCC 81 in which it was held that application for condonation of delay should be decided only with parameters laid down by Apex Court  with regard to condonation of delay.  No court could be justified in condoning inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. “Sufficient cause” should be given a liberal interpretation to ensure that substantial justice is done, but only so long as negligence, inaction or lack of bonafides cannot be imputed.   Whether or not sufficient cause has been furnished, can be decided on the facts of a particular case and no straitjacket formula is possible. In that case there was delay of five and a half years in filing the appeal.  Hence, the same does not help the respondent.

5.        The respondent has also relied upon decision in Esha Bhattacharjee vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and Ors (2013)12 SCC 649.  In that case there was delay of 2449 days.  That again does not apply to the present case.

6.        On the other hand the counsel for the appellant relied upon decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in RSA No. 205/11 titled as DDA vs. Ramesh Chand decided on 03.05.2016.  In that case delay of six months was condoned.  It has been held that though affidavit of seeking condonation of delay was based on the averment that appeal has been filed after reopening of the court in July while appeal was filed in September, this is no ground to dismiss the application.   The law regarding limitation has gone sea change from first judgement laid down by Apex Court in Ram Lal, Moti Lal and Chhotelal vs, Rewa Coaflields Ltd., 1962 SCR(3)762 till date. The principle that each day’s delay has to be explained had been given a go by.  Though law of limitation is same in government bodies and private individuals but still on account of impersonal body of the government some leeway has to be given to government bodies in taking a decision.  The court must conceive provision of ‘sufficient cause’ liberally in a pragmatic manner rather than ousting a party on technicalities.

 7.       In Civil appeal No. 10289/14 titled as ATS Govindarajne Vs. General Manager, SBI decided on 14.11.14 it was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that delay should be condoned liberally.  That was a case under consumer protection Act.

8.        It is a matter of common knowledge that no party would stand to gain by allowing a sword to hang on his head by mere delay in filing the appeal.

9.        In view of the above discussion, application is allowed and delay in filing appeal is condoned.

10.      Copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.

11.      Respondent to file reply to main appeal within eight weeks with advance copy to the appellant. List on 03.05.17 for reply to main appeal.

 

 

(O.P.GUPTA)

MEMBER(JUDICIAL)