State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Delhi Jal Board vs Shri Vishwa Nath Pandey on 6 November, 2013
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision : 6.11.2013 First Appeal 8/2013 (Arising out of the order dated 16.5.2012 passed by the District Forum(North West), Shalimar Bagh, Delhi in complaint case No. 22/2010) Delhi Jal Board Through Shri Yashpal Kalra ZRO, North West-1, Delhi ....Appellant VS Shri Vishwa Nath Pandey, General Secretary, 13, Friends Enclave, RWA, East Nangloi, Delhi-110 086. ..Respondent CORAM) JUSTICE BARKAT ALI ZAIDI, PRESIDENT SALMA NOOR, Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
SALMA NOOR, MEMBER
1. This appeal by the OP of the case No.22 of 2010 is directed against the order dated 22.3.2012 of the CDRF- (North West), Shalimar Bagh, Delhi whereby the complaint of the respondent allowed and OP was directed to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on an amount of Rs.3,23,317/- for the period 22.3.2000 to 21.9.2006 within 30 days from the date of order.
2. The appeal is accompanied by an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. According to the appellant himself there is a huge delay of 180 days in filing the appeal.
3. We have heard Shri Arvind Kumar, Counsel for the Appellant and Shri Vishwa Nath Panday respondent in person.
4. It is admitted by the applicant in its applications that there is delay of 180 days in filing the appeal. The reason given by the appellant for delay is given below:-
That the appellant sent the file to the Head Office Delhi Jal Board for taking immediate action due to official process the file came to the advocate for filing the appeal in 2nd week of July, 2012. That the file got misplaced in the office of the advocate, because the clerk of advocate kept the file in the office and left the job. The file remained traced on 15th of Nov., 2012 and then the appeal was prepared.
5. This reason does not provide any justified ground for condonation of such a long delay in filing the appeal. The Law of limitation calls for explanation for each day delay after expiry of period of limitation, an explanation for delay has to be rational, reasonable and realistic and to be acceptable. Delay caused due to advocate personal problem or mistakes or being on leave is no exception provided in the proviso given under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, which provides for limitation.
6. 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 petition stands properly examined. 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.
7. Honble Supreme Court after exhaustive considering the case law on the aspect of condonation of delay observed in Orien Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation reported in (2010) 5 SCC 459 as under:-
We have considered the respective submissions. The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The legislature does not prescribe limitation with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that they do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek remedy without delay. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a period fixed by the legislature. To put it differently, the law of limitation prescribes a period within which legal remedy can be availed to redress of the legal injury. At the same time, the courts are bestowed with the power to condone the delay, if sufficient cause is shown for not availing the remedy within the stipulated time The expression sufficient cause employed in Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 and similar other statues is elastic enough to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which sub serves the ends of justice. Although, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in dealing with the applications for condonation of delay, this Court has justifiably advocated adoption of a liberal approach in condoning the delay of short duration and a stricter approach where the delay is inordinate Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji (1987)2 SCC 107, N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 and 10 Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil (2001) 9 SCC 106.
8. Apex Court in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) has observed:
It is also opposite 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.
9. The law of the Supreme Court followed by National Commission and this Commission in this regard is well settled. Reference can be made to few of such cases cited below:
i) Delhi Development Authority vs. Gurinder Kaur Kohli-III 2010 CPJ 248 (NC)
ii) HUDA vs Krishna Devi III 2010 CPJ 202 (NC)
iii) HUDA vs Randhir Singh III 2010 CPJ 202 (NC)
iv) Narayana I.I.T. Academy vs. R.K. Sharma III 2010 191 (DSCDRC)
10. Hence, the request for condoning the delay is turned down and the application for the purpose moved by the appellant is rejected.
11. Consequently we dismiss the appeal on the ground of its being time barred.
12. FDR, if any, deposited by the appellant be released after completing due formalities.
13. Copy of this order be provided to the parties free of cost and a copy of this order be also sent to concerned District Forum and thereafter, file be consigned to record room.
(Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi) President (Salma Noor) Member Arya