1.      This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner, HUDA & Anr. against the order dated 13.03.2015 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in RP No.72 of 2014.

2.      Brief facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent was given possession in the year 2003 against the offer letter dated 21.08.2003.  Petitioner levied various charges on the complainant for not constructing the building on the said plot.  Complainant filed a complaint bearing No.120 of 2008 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kurukshetra, (in short ‘the District Forum”) alleging that in the vicinity a plot was also given to the mother of the complainant and the possession thereof was delivered only in 2006.  Thus, development work was not completed till 2006 and therefore, no fee for extension or any penalty can be levied before 2006.  The District Forum allowed the complaint vide its order dated 08.01.2010 as under:-

“6.   For the foregoing reasons, we accept this complaint and direct the OPs to reconsider their demand of demanding interest on the basis of the letter of possession issued by them on 27.8.2003.  We further award a sum of Rs.1100/- as litigation expenses.  This order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of announcement of this order failing which penal action under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act will be taken.  File be consigned to record after due compliance.”

3.      Complainant filed an execution application before the District Forum for implementation of the order dated 08.01.2010 of the District Forum passed in complain No.120 of 2008.  The opposite party filed a compliance report.  The District Forum after considering the material on record passed the following order on 04.6.2014:-

“4.   It has been contended by learned counsel for JDs that in response to the order dated 8.1.2010 passed by this Forum, the JDs have reconsidered the demand of interest on the basis of letter of possession issued by them on 27.8.2003 and its intimation has also been given to the complainant vide letter No.17844 dated 25.10.2011 and thus, the direction of the Forum to reconsider has been complied with by the JDs.  Since there was no specific direction to the OPs for which they can be directed to make compliance.  The simple direction was to reconsider the demand of interest on the basis of letter of possession issued by them on 27.8.2003.  The other direction to pay a sum of Rs.1100/- as litigation expenses has also been complied with.

5.     Keeping in view the facts before us, we consider that there is no substance in the execution petition filed by the decree holder and same is hereby dismissed.  File be consigned to the record after due compliance.”

4.      The complainant preferred RP No.72 of 2014 against order dated 4.6.2014 of the District Forum before the State Commission and the State Commission vide its order dated 13.3.2015 passed the following order:-

“10. After going through the entire order, it is clear that District Forum exempted the complainant from paying interest before 04.10.2006 and after that date the interest is to be calculated.  So impugned order is set aside. The OPs should reconsider the demand of interest keeping in view these observations as well as the entire order dated 08.01.2010 and inform the executing court.

11.  Hence the revision petition is allowed.”

5.      Hence the present revision petition by the opposite parties/petitioners.

6.      Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.  Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the order of the District Forum was only to reconsider the interest in the light of the order dated 08.01.2010 and accordingly compliance was submitted before the District Forum, which after fully satisfying itself dismissed the execution application filed by the complainant.  The complainant preferred the revision petition before the State Commission and the State Commission has passed a fresh order, which is not in harmony with the original order passed by District Forum dated 08.01.2010.  In the execution proceedings the executing forum cannot pass any fresh order or cannot interpret any order against actual wordings of the order for which the execution has been sought.  Thus, the order of the State Commission is totally against the law and also against the facts.  The learned counsel mentioned that all development works were completed in the year 2003 as mentioned in the offer of possession and then only the complainant had taken the possession.  After taking the possession the complainant cannot raise these questions.

7.      The learned counsel for the respondent/complainant stated that because an offer letter was sent, so possession was taken but development works were not complete at that time.  The possession has been given to others later on and he referred to the possession given of a plot in the vicinity to the mother of the complainant which was in the year 2006.  Hence, at the most, interest can be charged only from the year 2006 as ordered by the State Commission. 

8.      I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record.  First of all it is seen that the revision petition has been filed with a delay of 862 days as reported by the office.  The application for condonation of delay mentions as follows:-

“3.   That after receiving the copy of the order the petitioner discussed the matter with higher authorities.  That meanwhile the matter was under consideration with the higher authorities for further course of action, the file for the court file of the State Commission got misplaced by the counsel for respondent in the month of November 2015.

4.     That in the month of July 2017 only, the copy of Revision petition filed before the State Commission, Panchkula was made available to the petitioner.  Further, the counsel was engaged to file the present revision petition before the Hon’ble National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission. 

5.     That the present counsel soon after receiving the engagement letter, got in touch with the department to provide, the relevant documents along with the copy of impugned order in order to draft the present petition.  That after receiving the files, the counsel went through the documents and found that some material information was missing in order to draft the present petition including the certified copy of the impugned order.   Therefore, the counsel for petitioner wrote an email on 17.10.2017 to the petitioner to provide certain documents and instructions.

6.     That the counsel received the information on 18.10.2017. The counsel immediately sent certain documents for typing on 18.10.2017 and drafted the present petition.

7.     That the present delay in neither intentional nor deliberate but a result of the abovementioned events.”

9.      It is surprising that inspite of filing the application for condonation of long delay of 862 days, learned counsel did not argue anything in favour of the condonation of delay.  Similarly, the learned counsel for the respondent also did not argue anything against the application for condonation of delay. It would be clear from the reasons given in the application for condonation of delay that the reasons are mainly procedural and also relate to misplacement of their court file.  The procedural delays cannot be considered as sufficient cause for condoning the delay as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Postmaster General &Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. &Anr. (2012) 3 SCC 563 wherein the Apex Court has observed as under:- 

“29. 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 the government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few.

30.    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”.

10.    Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, 2009 (2) Scale 108, 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.” 

11.    Special periods of limitation have been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, for speedy disposal of consumer disputes. 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.”

12.   Decision of Anshul Aggarwal (Supra) has been reiterated in CicilyKallarackalVs. Vehicle Factory, IV (2012) CPJ 1(SC) 1, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court observed;

“4. 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).

  5.    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.         

6.      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.”

13.    It is seen from the above mentioned authoritative judgments that delay in the consumer disputes is not to be taken lightly and that for condoning the delay, it should be seen whether the party has acted with reasonable diligence in prosecuting its case.  Moreover, the procedural delays are not considered as sufficient cause for condonation of delay particularly for government agencies.  It is seen that the main reason for huge delay has been that the file of the petitioners got misplaced in 2015 and it was found only in 2017.  Nothing is mentioned in the application regarding the efforts of the petitioners in tracing or reconstituting the file.  Therefore, there is no option but to presume that nothing concrete and worth mentioning was done by the petitioners during this period.  Moreover, this only speaks of the red-tape that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has hinted at in its judgment in Postmaster General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. (supra).

14.    On the basis of above examination, it is seen that the above mentioned authoritative judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court are fully applicable to the present case and negligence and deliberate inaction are imputable to the petitioners in filing the present petition.  Accordingly, the huge delay of 862 days in filing the present revision petition cannot be condoned.  Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed.  Consequently, the RP No.3314 of 2017.  No order as to costs.