National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Post Master vs Balram Singh Patel Inaram Lodhi on 28 February, 2018
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 594 OF 2018 (Against the Order dated 12/09/2017 in Appeal No. 606/2016 of the State Commission Chhattisgarh) 1. POST MASTER HEAD POST OFFICE, DURG, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT-DURG CHHATTISGARH ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. BALRAM SINGH PATEL INARAM LODHI R/O. VILLAGE MEDESARA, TEHSIL DHAMDHA, DISTRICT-DURG CHHATTISGARH ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr. A S Singh, Advocate For the Respondent :
Dated : 28 Feb 2018 ORDER
This revision is directed against the order of the State Commission Chhattisgarh dated 12.09.2017 in First Appeal No. FA/2016/606. The revision, however, has been filed after the expiry of 90 days period of limitation with a delay of 39 days. The petitioner has, therefore, moved an application for condonation of delay.
Before adverting to the application for condonation of delay, it would be appropriate to spell out the basic facts giving rise to this revision petition.
Complainant Balram Singh Patel filed a consumer complaint against the opposite party alleging deficiency in service i.e. failure of the opposite party to deliver to him the AD card in respect of registered AD communication sent to Secretary, Gram Panchayat. The complaint was resisted by the opposite party by denying the allegations of deficiency in service. It was pleaded in the written statement that postal article has been delivered to the addressee.
The District Forum on consideration of the pleadings and evidence allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay to the respondent / complainant sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation besides Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost.
The opposite party being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum approached the State Commission in appeal. The State Commission on re-appreciation of evidence, concurred with the finding of the District Forum on merits. However, the State Commission reduced the compensation awarded by the District Forum from Rs.50,000 to Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost was also reduced from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.2000/-. Not being satisfied with the order of the State Commission, the petitioner instead of paying the petty amount of Rs.12,000/- in satisfaction of the order of the State Commission has preferred this revision petition.
Coming to the application for condonation of delay. The explanation for delay in filing of the revision petition is given in para 3 to 11 of IA No. 3308 of 2018 which are reproduced as under:
3. Copy of the impugned order dated 12.09.2017 of the State Commission was dispatched by the State Commission on 18.09.2017 and the same was received by the petitioners on 09.10.2017
4. After receipt of the order, the opinion of the Government Counsel was requested and the same was received vide letter dated 12.10.2017 and after enclosing the opinion of the Government Counsel, the order was forwarded to the circle office for necessary direction.
5. Vide letter dated 06.11.2017 the circle office was reminded that the necessary direction/ approval is still not received.
6. The circle office vide letter dated 30.11.2017 clarified the concern branch that the opinion of the Ministry of Law and Justice has been sought in the matter and after receipt of the opinion of the Ministry of Law and Justice, necessary instruction will be issued to the petitioner in the matter.
7. That the Ministry of Law & Justice in response to the letter dated 20.11.2017 provided its opinion vide letter dated 07.12.2017 and thereafter vide letter dated 05.01.2018, the circle office of the petitioner forwarded the same and informed that ministry of law and justice, Mumbai is of the opinion that the present matter is fit for filing Revision Petition against the impugned order dated 12.09.2017 and directed the Durg Division, the petitioner herein to file this Revision Petition before this Hon'ble Court.
8. That the aforesaid direction of the circle office was received in the office of Sr. Superintendent of posts Durg Division on 08.01.2018 and accordingly the order was issued for filing of the Revision Petition before this Hon'ble Court on 12.01.2018.
9. That thereafter vide letter dated 31.01.2018 the Govt. counsel was engaged by the petitioner and the copies of the necessary documents were provided to him for drafting of the Revision Petition.
10. That the Govt. counsel thereafter drafted the Revision Petition and forwarded the same to the petitioner vide letter dated 03.02.2018.
11. That after receipt of the Revision Petition from Govt. counsel, the approval was obtained from the competent authority and thereafter the same has been filed before this Hon'ble Commission.
On going through the above, I am not convinced with the explanation given for delay given by the petitioner. Reading of the above explanation makes it clear that petitioner department is highly casual in dealing with matters pertaining to filing of appeals and revisions.
Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with condonation of delay has observed thus:
In Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, it has been observed as under: -
"It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by S.5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the enquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant".
In R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, 2009 (2) Scale 108 Apex Court has observed as follows:
"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.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) 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."
Recently, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Post Master General and others vs. Living Media India Ltd. and another (2012) 3 Supreme Court Cases 563 has held:
"24. After referring various earlier decisions, taking very lenient view in condoning the delay, particularly, on the part of the Government and Government Undertaking, this Court observed as under;
"29. It needs no restatement at our hands that the object for fixing time-limit for litigation is based on public policy fixing a lifespan for legal remedy for the purpose of general welfare. They are meant to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but avail their legal remedies promptly. Salmond in his Jurisprudence states that the laws come to the assistance of the vigilant and not of the sleepy.
30. Public interest undoubtedly is a paramount consideration in exercising the courts' discretion wherever conferred upon it by the relevant statutes. Pursuing stale claims and multiplicity of proceedings in no manner subserves public interest. Prompt and timely payment of compensation to the landlosers facilitating their rehabilitation /resettlement is equally an integral part of public policy. Public interest demands that the State or the beneficiary of acquisition, as the case may be, should not be allowed to indulge in any act to unsettle the settled legal rights accrued in law by resorting to avoidable litigation unless the claimants are guilty of deriving benefit to which they are otherwise not entitled, in any fraudulent manner. One should not forget the basic fact that what is acquired is not the land but the livelihood of the landlosers. These public interest parameters ought to be kept in mind by the courts while exercising the discretion dealing with the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.Dragging the landlosers to courts of law years after the termination of legal proceedings would not serve any public interest. Settled rights cannot be lightly interfered with by condoning inordinate delay without there being any proper explanation of such delay on the ground of involvement of public revenue. It serves no public interest."
The Court further observed:
"27. It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us.
28. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the Government.
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 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.
31. In view of our conclusion on Issue (a), there is no need to go into the merits of Issues (b) and (c). The question of law raised is left open to be decided in an appropriate case.
32. In the light of the above discussion, the appeals fail and are dismissed on the ground of delay. No order as to costs."
From the above, it is clear that while dealing with application for condonation of delay, the Courts / Tribunals are expected to have a liberal approach but this does not mean that the petitioner seeking condonation of delay can get away with the gross negligence in pursuing his right.
In view of the above discussion and the settled positon in law, I do not find merit in the application for condonation of delay, particularly when a petty amount of Rs.12,0000/- is involved. Application is accordingly dismissed. As a consequence, revision petition is also dismissed as barred by limitation. It is made clear that if delay in filing of the revision petition has caused any loss to the department, the Department may fix the responsibility of officer who has been negligent and recover the amount from his salary.
......................J AJIT BHARIHOKE PRESIDING MEMBER