State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Indian Railways vs Harvinder Kaur on 5 July, 2023
A/228/2023 DOD:05.07.2023
INDIAN RAILWAYS VS. HARVINDER KAUR
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION
Date of Institution: 24.05.2023
Date of hearing : 03.07.2023
Date of Decision : 05.07.2023
FIRST APPEAL NO. 228/2023
IN THE MATTER OF
INDIAN RAILWAYS
THROUGH THE CHAIRMAN,
RAILWAY BOARD,
INDIAN RAILWAY, MINISTRY OF RAILWAY,
RAIL BHAWAN,
NEW DELHI-110001
...APPLICANT/APPELLANT
VERSUS
MS. HARVINDER KAUR,
W/O MR. AVTAR SINGH,
C-71, UPPER SECOND FLOOR,
PANDAV NAGAR, NEAR RADHA
KRISHAN MANDIR, DELHI-110092
....NON-APPLICANT/ RESPONDENT
CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)
HON'BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Present: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Verma, counsel for the
appellant/applicant.
Mr. Avatar Singh, husband of the respondent in person.
PER: HON'BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
1.The present appeal has been filed on 24.05.2023 challenging the impugned order dated 10.10.2022 vide which Complaint Case No. 373/2019 was allowed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (East), Convenient Shopping Centre, First Floor, Saini Enclave, Delhi-110092.
DISMISSED Page 1 of 9 A/228/2023 DOD:05.07.2023
INDIAN RAILWAYS VS. HARVINDER KAUR
2. This order will dispose off an application bearing IA
No.1228/2023 seeking condonation of delay of 197 days in filing the appeal, filed alongwith the appeal. Affidavit of Ms. Ravinder Preet Kaur, Divisional Commercial Manager/ SS of the appellant has been filed alongwith this application.
3. The record has been carefully and thoroughly perused.
4. The application has been moved without any provision of law.
However, it is being considered under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as it is arising out of Complaint Case No.373/2019.
5. Application for condonation of delay has been filed on various grounds. Para No.5 to Para No.7 of the application read as under:
"5. That it is evident from the cause title of the Impugned Order that the complaint was heard and order reserved on 20-09-2022. But without issuing notice to the either party the said case was again listed on 10-10-2022 under heading "Cases For Consideration". When no one appear, the complaint was allowed, which clearly shows irregularity in passing order by the learned DCF.
6. That the Impugned Order was prepared by the learned DCF vide Diary No. 6658-59 dated 15-11-2022 and sent to the Chairman, Railway Board, which was received in the office of the Chairman Railway Board on 30-11-2022. Thus, the appeal was due to be filed on 30-12-2022 from the date of said communication of the order but it is being filed today on 09-05-2023 i.e., delay of about 130 days due to the following reasons:
a) Learned Counsel for the Appellant Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Verma was engaged in the case on 12-01-
2023 for filing and contesting the aforesaid appeal. But Certified Copy of the Impugned Order and Fixed Deposit as Statutory amount for filing appeal was missing, hence, he informed the official concerned DISMISSED Page 2 of 9 A/228/2023 DOD:05.07.2023 INDIAN RAILWAYS VS. HARVINDER KAUR Mr. Kashi Prasad, CMI to make available the aforesaid documents and also the entire note sheet of the department to show that there was delay due to official procedure for talking decision in filing appeal. Copies of the said documents had been furnished to the Railway Counsel through Registered Post dated 25-03-2023/ 28-03-2023.
b) Thereafter, Mr. Verma drafted appeal and sent it to the concerned person for its approval and affidavit. Subsequent the said affidavit got attested and Notarized on 01-05-2023 and handed over to Mr. Verma on 04-05-2023 and hence, this appeal is being filed today on 09-05-2023 as 05-05-2023 to 07-05-2023 was holiday. This limitation petition is supported by an affidavit.
Copies of the entire Note-sheet of department are annexed herewith as ANNEXURE A-2 Colly.
7. That there is delay in filing the appeal due to official procedure and the circumstances beyond the control of the Appellant. The Hon'ble Apex Court took liberal view in condoning delay in catena of Judgments including State of Nagaland v. Lipok Ao (2005) 3 SCC 752; Bhag Singh & Ors. Vs. Major Daljit Singh & Ors. 1987 Supp SCC 685; N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123."
7. To adjudicate this issue, we deem it appropriate to refer to Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which provides as under:-
"Any person aggrieved by an order made by the District Forum may prefer an appeal against such order to the State Commission within a period of thirty days from the date of the order in such form and manner as may be prescribed.
Provided that the State Commission may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within that period:DISMISSED Page 3 of 9
A/228/2023 DOD:05.07.2023 INDIAN RAILWAYS VS. HARVINDER KAUR [Provided further that no appeal by a person, who is required to pay any amount in terms of an order of the District Forum, shall be entertained by the State Commission unless the appellant has deposited in the prescribed manner fifty per cent. of the amount or rupees thirty-five thousand, whichever is less]"
8. A perusal of the aforesaid statutory position reflects that the appeal against an order should be preferred within a period of thirty days from the date of impugned judgment. On perusal of record before us, it is clear that the impugned order was pronounced on 10.10.2022 and the present appeal was filed on 24.05.2023 i.e. after a delay of 196 days.
9. In order to condone the delay, the Appellant has to satisfy this Commission that there was sufficient cause for preferring the appeal 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 DISMISSED Page 4 of 9 A/228/2023 DOD:05.07.2023 INDIAN RAILWAYS VS. HARVINDER KAUR 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."
10. 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, will get defeated if the appeals and revisions, which are highly belated are entertained."
11. 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 DISMISSED Page 5 of 9 A/228/2023 DOD:05.07.2023 INDIAN RAILWAYS VS. HARVINDER KAUR 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.
12. 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.
13. Reverting to the material available before us, we find that the impugned order was passed on 10.10.2022 and the period of limitation starts from the date of order which had expired on 09.11.2022. However, the appellant has failed to file the present appeal within the stipulated period and the reason for delay stated in the application are that matter was reserved for orders on 20.09.2022 by the learned District Commission and the same was pronounced on 10.10.2022; certified copy of the same was received by the Appellant on 30.11.2022 from the learned District Commission through post; the counsel was engaged on 12.01.2023 for filing the appeal but certified copy of the impugned DISMISSED Page 6 of 9 A/228/2023 DOD:05.07.2023 INDIAN RAILWAYS VS. HARVINDER KAUR order and FD was missing; the said documents was furnished by the concerned official through registered post on 25.03.2023/28.03.2023; thereafter, appeal was drafted and sent to the concerned person for approval which caused delay in filing the appeal.
14. A perusal of copy of impugned order, filed alongwith the Appeal at page No.44 reveals that the impugned order was sent to the parties by the learned District Commission vide dispatch No.6658-59 dated 15.11.2022 which was received by the appellant on 30.11.2022.
15. Therefore, if the limitation period be calculated from the date of receipt of the impugned order i.e. 30.11.2022, the present appeal would be filed within 30 days. However, the present appeal was filed on 09.05.2023 i.e. after a delay of 145 days of receiving the certified copy of impugned order which has to be explained by the Appellant.
16. Para No.5 to 7 of the application for condonation of delay are the explanation given by the Appellant for the delay caused in filing this appeal. However, there are no cogent reasons given by the Appellant to explain as to why they did not take immediate steps even after receiving the certified copy of the order on 30.11.2022. The Appellant has failed to explain the day-to-day delay caused after the receipt of the impugned order.
17. It has further been submitted that the delay in filing the appeal is procedural delay and in this regard, citations have been referred in cases titled as State of Nagaland v. Lipok Ao (2005) 3 SCC 752; Bhag Singh & Ors. Vs. Major Daljit Singh & Ors. 1987 Supp SCC 685; N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123.
DISMISSED Page 7 of 9A/228/2023 DOD:05.07.2023 INDIAN RAILWAYS VS. HARVINDER KAUR
18. On perusal of record before us, the cases relied by the Appellant are not disputed, however are not applicable in the facts and the circumstances of the instant case.
19. To this argument of the Appellant, we deem it appropriate to refer to the case of Office of The Chief Post Master General and Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. and Ors. Reported at AIR 2012 SC 1506, wherein the apex court has held as under:
"12. .......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.
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."
20. Relying on the above settled law and considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the appellant for the delay except mentioning of events, according to us, the Appellant has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such delay. Accordingly, the application filed by the Appellant seeking condonation of delay is without any merit and needs to be dismissed.
DISMISSED Page 8 of 9 A/228/2023 DOD:05.07.2023
INDIAN RAILWAYS VS. HARVINDER KAUR
21. Therefore, the application filed by the appellant seeking
condonation of delay cannot be admitted and accordingly, the same is dismissed on the above grounds.
22. Consequently, the present appeal filed beyond the statutory period also stands dismissed. However, in the facts of the case, there shall be no order as to cost.
23. File be consigned to record room.
JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT) PINKI MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Pronounced on 05.07.2023 DISMISSED Page 9 of 9