Haryana

StateCommission

A/309/2019

JAI KRISHAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

KARAN SINGH

13 Jun 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

  Date of Institution:20.03.2019

                Date of final hearing:28.05.2024

                                                Date of pronouncement:13.06.2024

 

First Appeal No.309 of 2019

 

IN THE MATTER OF

 

Jai Kishan age 66 years son of Shri Vidhya Parkash, R/o Village and Post Office Kheri Dabdalan, District Yamuna Nagar.

.….Appellant.

 

Through Counsel Shri Karan Singh, Advocate

 

Versus

 

1.  
2.  
3.  

….Respondents.

Through counsel Shri B.S. Negi, Advocate

 

CORAM:   S.C. Kaushik, Member.

 

Present:-    Mr. Karan Singh, counsel for the appellant.

                   Mr. B.S. Negi, counsel for respondents.

 

O R D E R

S. C. KAUSHIK, MEMBER:

 

                    Present appeal is preferred against the order dated 12.09.2018 in Consumer Complaint No.294 of 2017, passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Yamuna Nagar Jagadhri (now ‘learned District Commission’), vide which complaint filed by the complainant was allowed and opposite parties (“OPs”) were directed as under:-

“As a sequel of above the Ops are directed to refund the amount of Rs.147072/- deposited by the complainant for release of tube well connection along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of its deposit till its realization. Further to pay Rs.5000/- as lump sum compensation on account of mental agony, harassment as well as cost of proceedings. Order be complied within 30 days from the date of preparation of copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum under section 25 & 27 of C.P. Act.”

 

2.  
3.  

4.                After hearing the parties, learned District Commission allowed the complaint and issued directions as mentioned above in 1^st para supra.

5.                Aggrieved from the impugned order passed by learned District Commission, complainant-appellant has preferred present appeal for setting aside the impugned order by accepting the present appeal for enhancement of awarded amount.

6.                The arguments have been advanced by Mr. Karan Singh, learned counsel for appellant and Mr. B.S. Negi, learned counsel for respondents. With their kind assistance, contents of the appeal have also been properly perused and examined.

7.                Along with the present appeal, an application for condonation of delay of 140 days in filing of the present appeal has also been filed. Appellant has filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act (in short “Act”)  for condonation of delay of 140 days wherein,  it is alleged that  after decision of the complaint vide order dated 12.09.2018, appellant-complainant never contacted is counsel in District Commission and he came to know about the decision in January, 2019, but he was not suggested to file the appeal against impugned order. Thereafter, appellant-complainant in the first week of March, 2019 went to take his brief from counsel and only then he was suggested by local counsel that an appeal should have been filed. The delay in filing the appeal is neither intentional nor willful but on account of the reasons mentioned herein above.

8.                Arguments heard on application for condonation of delay as well as on merits of appeal. File perused.

9.                However, the contention of learned counsel for appellant to condone delay is of no avail.  A period of 30 days has been provided for filing an appeal against the order of the District Forum. The proviso therein permits the State Commission to entertain an appeal after the expiry of the period of 30 days if it is satisfied that there is “Sufficient cause” for not filing the appeal within the prescribed period. The expression of sufficient cause has not been defined in the Act and rightly so, because it would vary from facts and circumstances of each case. It is settled law that delay of each and every delay should be explained properly with some reasonable cause but in the appeal in hand. No reasonable ground and sufficient cause has been pleaded or proved.  Thus, inordinate delay for more than 140 days, cannot be condoned as there is no justifiable reason or sufficient cause to condone the same.

10.              Here reliance can be placed on the following judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

          The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others, AIR, 1977 Supreme Court 1221 has held that;

“Section 5 of the Limitation Act is a hard task-master and judicial interpretation has encased it within a narrow compass. A large measure of case-law has grown around S.5, its highlights being that one ought not easily to take away a right which has accrued to a party by lapse of time and that therefore a litigant who is not vigilant about his rights must explain every days’ delay.”

          The Hon’ble National Commission in case Government of U.T. Electricity Department & Others versus Ram Lubhai, II(2006) CPJ 104 has held that:-

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 15 –Appeal –Maintainability – Limitation –Condonation of delay– Resjudicata –Appeal filed after a delay of 44 days –Plea of procedural delay in getting approval for filing appeal – Appeal filed by complainant against order of District Forum decided and copy of order dispatched to parties prior to filing of appeal by opposite party –Appeal and application for condonation of delay dismissed –Matter once finally concluded by any Court cannot be reopened by same Court.”

          In R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari 2009 (2) Scale 108, it has   been 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.”

    In 2012 (2) CPC 3 (SC) – Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under:-

“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”.

 

11.              Even on merits also, it is an admitted fact that the present appellant-complainant had applied for the release of tube well connection and deposited Rs.30,000/- as consent money and Rs.1,16,112/- as cost of material. It is also an admitted fact that the completion of formalities all the formalities such like deposition of requisite amount etc. by the appellant-complainant were completed. Seniority of the appellant-complainant entitling him to the release of tube well connection is also not in dispute as it is established on record that the XEN concerned vide his letter dated 24.03.2017 has granted the sanction to the concerned SDO to draw the required material from the store. It is also admitted as well as established on record that the respondents-OPs have declined the application of the appellant-complainant for the release of the tube well connection only on the ground that new tube well connection cannot be released in the area which falls under the ‘Dark Zone’ as per instructions issued by the competent authority.

12.              Moreover, from the perusal of sale circular No.U-6/2017, reveals that it was decided to issue demand notices to the applicants who have applied for tube well connections up to 31.12.2013. The perusal of said letter further reveals that it contains the prohibition clause regarding the release of tube well connection in the ‘Dark Zone’ which is reproduced as under:-

“The matter has been re-considered by Worthy PS (Power) and it has been decided that in future, no agriculture tube well connection should be released in the notified areas. In case where any amount for release of tube well connection in the notified are has been deposited by an applicant under General or Tatkal Scheme but the connection has not yet been released the amount deposited shall be refunded”.

 

13.             Thus, it is also established that the respondents-OPs rightly decided that a new tube well connection cannot be released in the area which fell under the Dark Zone and admittedly the village of the complainant falls under the jurisdiction of Ladwa Block of Kurukshetra District which is a part of notified area mentioned at Sr. No.20 of the said sale circular. However, the respondent-OPs cannot be absolved of their liability to refund the deposited amount with them and rather it was incumbent upon the respondents-OPs to refund the deposited amount to the appellant-complainant. However, the respondents-OPs have not even attempted to refund the deposited the amount to the appellant-complainant.

14.              Hence, in view of the aforesaid facts emanating from the record it stands proved that there is deficiency in service on the part of respondents-OPs to the extent not refunding the deposited amount to the appellant-complainant. In view of the above observations and discussion, learned District Commission rightly allowed the complaint of the complainant and rightly issued directions to the present respondents-OPs. The impugned order passed by learned District Commission is well reasoned, based on facts and as per law, and therefore, there is no need to interfere with it. In view of this, present appeal is without merits and thus, stands dismissed.

15.               A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. This order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.

16.                Application(s), pending, if any, stands disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.

17.                File be consigned to record room alongwith a copy of this order.

 

Pronounced on 13^th June, 2024                                                                                                                                                                                 

                                                                                                            S.C. Kaushik                                                                                                                        Member                                                                                                                                 Addl. Bench