Sh. SANJAY KUMAR, PRESIDENT

ORDER

19.01.2024

1. A complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act filed. In brief the facts are that the complainant No.1 son passed away in a tragic incident on 09.07.2013 by getting electrocuted from electric pole no. 309 which was placed in front of the house of the complainant. It is further stated that Post Mortem report no. 389/13 mention the cause of death as ‘ death is due to Electrocution’. It is further stated that S.I. Sunil Kumar vide its letter dated 10.07.2013 to the District Manager Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd. enquired about the responsible officer in respect to the maintenance of the pole. The TPDDL vide its accident investigation report shifted the entire blame on the deceased and PWD further stating that there was no leakage of current in the nearby surrounding of the pole. It is further alleged by the complainant that the criminal case is already pending before Rohini Court since 2010 against the OP company. It is further stated by the complainant that criminal case is pending with Rohini Court for last 10 years and after realising that there is no possibility of earlier disposal of the criminal case, complainant approached this Commission for redressal of his grievance, hence this complaint.
2. We have heard the argument advance at the bar on behalf of complainant regarding the admissibility of the complaint as well as on the issue of limitation.
3. Admittedly, the cause of action for filing the present complaint firstly arose on 09.07.2013 when the son of the complainant got electrocuted from electric pole and passed away. Admittedly, complainant approached this Commission and filed the present complaint on 14.12.2023
4.  Let us peruse the relevant provision in respect of limitation provided under Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

As per section 69 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019: -

1. The District Forum, the state commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.
2. Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1). A complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the state commission or the National Commission , as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period: provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission , the State Commission, as the case may be records its reason form condoning such delay.

5. A perusal of the aforesaid statutory position reflects that the complaint should be preferred within a period of two years of the accrual of cause of action.
6. On perusal of record before us, we found that the cause of action for filing the present complaint arose on 09.07.2013. The complainant ought to have file the present complaint within two years of the accrual of cause of action but the complainant failed to do so.
7. An application for condonation of delay in filing the present complaint moved by complainant along with present complaint stating that the complainant being a priest shifted to Haridwar and carry on his livelihood through one local temple situated at Haridwar. During interaction with the people at large, he was suggested to approach this Commission for redressal of his grievance as the fate of the criminal case filed by him is not certain. It is submitted by the complainant that he failed to approach this Commission well within limitation due to pendency of the criminal case in Rohini court. It is further stated that the delay is neither intentional but due to aforesaid reason, hence, be condoned  in the interest of justice.
8. In order to condone the delay, the Appellant has to satisfy this Commission that there was sufficient cause for preferring the present complaint after the stipulated period. The term ‘sufficient cause’ has been explained by the Apex Court in Basawaraj and Ors. vs. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer reported in AIR 2014 SC 746. The relevant paras of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced as under:-

“9. Sufficient cause is the cause for which Defendant could not be blamed for his absence. The meaning of the word "sufficient" is "adequate" or "enough", inasmuch as may be necessary to answer the purpose intended. Therefore, the word "sufficient" embraces no more than that which provides a platitude, which when the act done suffices to accomplish the purpose intended in the facts and circumstances existing in a case, duly examined from the view point of a reasonable standard of a cautious man. In this context, "sufficient cause" means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part in view of the facts and circumstances of a case or it cannot be alleged that the party has "not acted diligently" or "remained inactive". However, the facts and circumstances of each case must afford sufficient ground to enable the Court concerned to exercise discretion for the reason that whenever the Court exercises discretion, it has to be exercised judiciously. The applicant must satisfy the Court that he was prevented by any "sufficient cause" from prosecuting his case, and unless a satisfactory explanation is furnished, the Court should not allow the application for condonation of delay. The court has to examine whether the mistake is bona fide or was merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose.”

9.  We also deem it appropriate to refer to Anil Kumar Sharma vs. United Indian Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. Reported in IV(2015)CPJ453(NC), wherein the Hon’ble NCDRC held as under:-

“12. ………we are not satisfied with the cause shown to justify the delay of 590/601 days. Day to day delay has not been explained. Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment of Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) has held that while deciding the application filed for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that 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, FA/516/2023 INDIAN RAILWAY VS. MR. S. VIJAYARAGHVAN DOD: 01.11.2023 DISMISSED Page 9 of 13 will get defeated if the appeals and revisions, which are highly belated are entertained.”

10. We further deem it appropriate to refer to Lingeswaran Etc. Versus Thirunagalingam in Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.2054- 2055/2022 decided on 25.02.2022, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: -

“5. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court. Once it was found even by the learned trial Court that delay has not been properly explained and even there are no merits in the application for condonation of delay, thereafter, the matter should rest there and the condonation of delay application was required to be dismissed. The approach adopted by the learned trial Court that, even after finding that, in absence of any material evidence it cannot be said that the delay has been explained and that there are no merits in the application, still to condone the delay would be giving a premium to a person who fails to explain the delay and who is guilty of delay and laches. At this stage, the decision of this Court in the case of PopatBahiruGoverdhane v. Land Acquisition Officer, reported in (2013) 10 SCC 765 is required to be referred to. In the said decision, it is observed and held that the law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The Court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The statutory provision may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the Court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same.

11. From the aforesaid dicta of the Hon’ble Apex Court and the Hon’ble National Commission, it is clear that ‘sufficient cause’ means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part and the applicant must satisfy the Court that he was prevented by any "sufficient cause" from prosecuting his case, and unless a satisfactory explanation is furnished, the Court should not allow the application for condonation of delay.
12. The counsel for complainant has placed on record the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme court titled as Rahim Shah & anr. Vs Govind Singh & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.4628 of 2023 in support of his contention. In the judgment relied by Ld. Counsel for complainant there was a delay of 52 days in filing the appeal whereas in the present complaint case there was a huge delay of 10 years in filing the present complaint case. The judgment cited by Ld. Counsel for complainant is distinguishable and not at all applicable in the present complaint case,
13. Admittedly, the substantive cause of action for filing the present complaint arose on 09.07.2013, the complainant ought to have file the present complaint on or before 08.07.2015 The complainant has filed the present complaint on 14.12.2023 i.e after the delay of 10 years. The complainant failed to justify the huge delay of 10 years in approaching this Commission.
14. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant failed to explain the sufficient cause for not approaching this Commission well within limitation, hence, application for condonation of delay in filing the present complaint stands dismissed, resulting in the dismissal of the present complaint being barred by limitation. File be consigned to record room.
15. Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon’ble State Commission after receiving the application from the parties in the registry.

Order be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

Announced in open Commission on   19.01.2024.

Sanjay Kumar                                                            Rajesh

               President                                                                   Member