PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK

1.      Counsel for the petitioner heard.  There is delay of 452 days in filing this revision petition.  The petitioner has filed application under section 5 of the limitation Act 1963 for condonation of delay.  The delay has been explained from paras 4 to 25, which are reproduced here as under:-

“4.       That on 24.2.12 the copy of the impugned judgment was received in the office of the claims of Railway and on 29.2.12 an opinion was sought from the senior law officer.

5.         That on 12.3.12 the opinion was received and the Chief Law Assistant Sent the matter for filing Revision Petition before this Hon’ble Commission on the basis of the opinion of the law officer and panel advocate.

6.         That on 15.3.12 the file was put for orders and accordingly vide office noting the file was sent for filing Revision Petition.

7.         That on 5.4.12 the complete file of appeal was received from Chief Leg al Advisor through Chief O.S. The Chief Legal Advisor put the file for nomination of Railway advocate before Deputy Chief Commercial Manager and on the same date one Mr. Rohit Jain was nominated.

8.         That on 12.4.12 the Vakalatnama was put up before C.C.M. for signature.

9.         That in the month of April 2012 the file was sent to Mr. Rohit Jain, Rly, Advocate for filing Revision Petition.

10.       That vide letter dated 12.6.12 and 20.7.12 the panel advocate was requested to inform the Railway with regard to the status of the Revision Petition.

11.       That thereafter several letters were corresponded with the panel advocate, of Delhi but no response was received.

12.       That on 18.3.12 the office of the Chief Claim Office also sought status of the Revision Petition.

13.       That on 28.03.13 the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager was requested to depute CCI/TVC/Consumer Court to report the office of Deputy Chief Commercial Manager/CI/Chennai on the information given by Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate that no staff were contacted ever.

14.       That it is pertinent to mention that the staff could not contact Mr. Rohit Jain, Advocte because he had already shifted his office somewhere else.

15.       That on 3.4.13 Railway decided to assign the case to Mr. Apurb Lal, Advocate to file Revision Petition before this Hon’ble Commission.

16.       That vide letter dated 5.4.13 the present lawyer was requested to prepare the case for filing Revision Petition before this Hon’ble Commission.

17.       That on 10.4.13 the entire file was handed over to Mr. Apurb Lal, Advocate.

18.       That on 18.4.13 panel lawyer informed the concerned Division to collect the draft of Revision Petition from his office.

19.       That on 22.4.13 the draft was collected from the office of the lawyer for approval of the petitioners.

20.       That on 1.5.13 the penel lawyer was requested to file the Revision Petition at earliest while sending the corrected draft of the petition.

21.       That on 10.5.13 the final draft was sent to the concerned department.

22.       That in the month of May, 13 the petitioners sent the signed affidavit to the panel advocate however inadvertently they mentioned the wrong chamber No.

23.       That on 25.5.13 the panel lawyer was asked whether he has received the affidavits or not on telephone.  The lawyer informed that he has not received any papers.  However, the respondents were requested to send another copy of the signed affidavits.

24.       That in the month of June, 13, another copy was sent to the chamber of the panel/lawyer.  However, due to holidays of the Supreme Court the panel lawyer was not in town.

25.       That on 1.7.13 on opening of the court the lawyer got the signed affidavits.”

 2.     The revision petition was ultimately filed before this Commission on 16.07.2013.  Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that he has tried to explain day-to-day delay and it was due to change of the office of the counsel. 

3.      We are not satisfied by the explanation given by the counsel for the petitioners.  Section 5, Limitation Act and proviso to Section 15, Consumer Protection Act is in pari materia – A bare look at Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act, makes it plain that the material part of the language of the proviso to Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act is in pari materia therewith.  Therefore, it would seem settled beyond caisil;  that it is incumbent on appellant to explain each day of default beyond the terminus line of the prescribed period of limitation. Effort made to explain the delay on day-to-day basis does not satisfy this Commission.  Each day’s delay has not been explained. The expression “sufficient cause” cannot be erased from Section 5 of the Limitation Act by adopting excessive liberal approach, which would defeat the very purpose of Section 5 of Limitation Act and Consumer Protection Act.  There must be some cause that must be termed as sufficient one for the purpose of delay condonation.  We do not think the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay are sufficient and the delay as such cannot be condoned.  This view finds support from the various authorities mentioned below.

4.      In Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), it has been held 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”. 

5.      In a recent authority in the Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. 2012 STPL(Web) 132 (SC), Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold:

                            “13. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide 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.”

6.      Similar view was taken in R.B. Ramlingam v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC), Ram Lal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, & Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others, AIR, 1977 SC 1221.

7.       It is thus clear that the case is hopelessly barred by time.  We, therefore, dismiss the revision petition and impose costs of  Rs. 25,000/- upon the petitioners for wasting the precious time of this Commission, the said costs be deposited with the Prime Minster Relief Fund towards Uttarakhand tragedy.  The cheque/demand draft  should be  in the name of  Prime Minister Relief Fund (towards Uttarakhand tragedy) and be handed over to the Registrar of this Commission, with 45 days from the receipt of this order, who shall transmit the cheque/draft to the Prime Minister’s office. If the costs are not deposited, it will carry interest @ 9% per annum. 

8.      Registrar of this Commission is directed to see the compliance and report.