State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Punjab State Agricultural ... vs Gurpreet Singh, on 12 July, 2013
2nd Addl. Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 102 of 2012
Date of institution: 27.1.2012
Date of decision : 12.7.2013
The Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board (Punjab Mandi Board),
SCO No. 149-152, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh through its Secretary.
.....Applicant-Appellant
Versus
1. Gurpreet Singh, aged 37 years, son of Gurmej Singh, resident of
Village Bholuwala, through his attorney Gurmej Singh son of Hari
Singh, resident of Village bholuwala, Tehsil and District
Ferozepur.
2. Balbir Kaur, aged 77 years w/o Avtar Singh
3. Jasbir Kaur aged 45 years wd/o Sukhjinder Singh
4. Rupinderjit Kaur, aged 25 years d/o Sukhjinder Singh
5. Jagdip Singh aged 22 years s/o Sukhjinder Singh
All residents of Village Bholuwala, Tehsil and District Ferozepur.
...Respondents
6. The Administrator, New Mandi Township, Punjab, SCO No. 2437-
2438, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh.
.....Proforma Respondent
2nd Appeal
First Appeal No. 103 of 2012
Date of institution: 27.1.2012
The Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board (Punjab Mandi Board),
SCO No. 149-152, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh through its Secretary.
.....Applicant-Appellant
Versus
1. Roshan Lal, aged 46 years, son of Raj Kumar, resident of Village &
Post Office Mudki, Tehsil and District Ferozepur.
.....Respondent
2. The Administrator, New Mandi Township, Punjab, SCO No. 2437-
2438, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh.
.....Proforma Respondent
3rd Appeal
First Appeal No. 104 of 2012
Date of institution: 27.1.2012
Date of decision : .7.2013
The Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board (Punjab Mandi Board),
SCO No. 149-152, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh through its Secretary.
.....Applicant-Appellant
First Appeal No. 102 of 2012 2
Versus
1. Gurpreet Singh, aged 37 years, son of Gurmej Singh, resident of
Village Bholuwala, through his attorney Gurmej Singh son of Hari
Singh, resident of Village Bholuwala, Tehsil and District Ferozepur.
2. Balbir Kaur, aged 77 years w/o Avtar Singh
3. Jasbir Kaur aged 45 years wd/o Sukhjinder Singh
4. Rupinderjit Kaur, aged 25 years d/o Sukhjinder Singh
5. Jagdip Singh aged 22 years s/o Sukhjinder Singh
All residents of Village Bholuwala, Tehsil and District Ferozepur.
...Respondents
6. The Administrator, New Mandi Township, Punjab, SCO No. 2437-
2438, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh.
.....Proforma Respondent
First Appeal against the order dated
19.10.2009 passed by the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozepur.
Before:-
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Presiding Member
Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member Argued By in F.A. 102 of 2012:-
For the applicant-appellant: Ms. Gaganjeet Kaur, Advocate For respondents No.1-5 : Ms. Nidhi Garg, Advocate for Sh. Sandeep Khunger, Advocate For respondent No.6 : Ex.-parte.
PIARE LAL GARG, PRESIDING MEMBER This order will dispose of three miscellaneous application Nos. 187, 189 and 191 of 2012, filed in First Appeal No. 102 of 2012 (The Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board versus Gurpreet Singh & others), First Appeal No. 103 of 2012 (The Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board versus Roshan Lal & another) and First Appeal No. 104 of 2012 (The Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board versus Gurpreet Singh & others), respectively for condonation of delay. In all the applications, same grounds are taken by the applicant-appellant(hereinafter called 'the applicant'). The facts First Appeal No. 102 of 2012 3 are taken from Misc. Application No. 187 of 2012 and the parties would be referred by their status in this application.
2. The applicant has filed miscellaneous application No. 187 of 2012 with the appeal and again filed better miscellaneous application No. 619 of 2012 for the condonation of delay on the grounds that the Estate Branch of the applicant deal with the disputes regarding the plots matter. The said Branch was facing shortage of staff to deal with the increasing plot dispute files. To overcome this problem, two posts of Legal Assistant were advertised in the month of May, 2011 and the selection process was completed in December, 2011. Two legal assistants and 9 Clerks were recruited in the Estate Branch of the applicant to study and deal with the plot dispute files. The legal assistants after studying the pending files initiated legal proceedings and put the files into motion. Thus, the appeal is being filed in this Commission with the delay of 758 days. The delay is neither intentional nor wilful but occurred due to bonafide reasons. If the application is not accepted then the appellant would suffer an irreparable loss and injury.
3. Upon notice, reply to the application was filed taking preliminary objections that the application is liable to be dismissed as the applicant has taken casual approach in filing the present appeals. As per law laid down by the Full Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in case "Smt. Tara Wanti Vs. State of Haryana", 1994 PLJ 495 that the law assist the vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights. On merits, it is pleaded that the averments contained in the application are vague. No dates mentioned in the application First Appeal No. 102 of 2012 4 when the legal advice was sought and when the same was given. The General Manager and the Legal Advisor are sitting under one roof and there is no justification of delay of 758 days in filing the appeal only on account of getting the legal advice and dismissal of the application was prayed.
4. We have perused the application, affidavit as well as reply to the application for condonation of delay.
5. The version given in the application for condonation of delay is vague and not sufficient to condone to the delay. It is also admitted case of the applicant that the area of Grain Market Talwandi Bhai was transferred to the applicant in the year of 2008 but the order under appeal was passed on 19.10.2009 i.e. after one year and no explanation is given by the applicant that on receipt of the copy of the order in the year of 2009, what steps were taken by the applicant to take decision for filing of the appeal against the order.
6. The Mandi Board is a big institution and has its separate legal wing in the Board. There are so many Advocates on the panel of the applicant at its head office to deal with the cases for and against the applicant such like in the Hon'ble High Court as well as in other departments of the Government of Punjab regarding the service disputes, collection of Market Fee etc.. The applicant also has the Advocates throughout Punjab on its Panel. So the version of the applicant that after the recruitment of 2 legal assistants the problem to deal with the cases regarding plot disputes was solved is not correct and believable.
First Appeal No. 102 of 2012 5
7. The reason given in the application for not filing the appeal within time show that the approach of the applicant is casual and act and conduct of the applicant proves that the applicant was itself at fault and was not interested to pursue the case.
8. This fact cannot be ignored that law of limitation and its provisions cannot be ignored in casual manner. It is the duty of the Court to keep in mind whether a valuable right has accrued to the respondent due to non-filing of the appeal in time and in case any valuable right has accrued, the Court should be reluctant to condone the delay. Law of limitation does not give any special exemption or indulgence in time limit for relaxation of time limits for a Government Department or any other Limited Company, as the applicant is. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case "Kamlesh Babu and Ors. Vs. Lajpat Rai Sharma and Others", 2008(3) The Punjab Law Reporter-455, while interpreting and explaining the scope of Section 3(1) of the Limitation Act, observed as follows:-
"It is well settled that Section 3(1) of the Limitation Act casts a duty upon the court to dismiss a suit or an appeal or an application, if made after the prescribed period, although, limitation is not set up as a defence".
9. Object of expeditious adjudication of consumer dispute will get defeated if the application is entertained when no cogent reason is given in the application for condonation of delay as held by Hon'ble National Commission in case "A.V. Sreedharan Vs. M.V. Narayanan", CPJ 2012 684 (NC).
10. It was also discussed by the Hon'ble National Commission in "M/s Arihant Builders & Ors. Versus Gaurav First Appeal No. 102 of 2012 6 Anand Co-op. Housing Society Ltd.", 2012(4) CPR 487 (NC) that it was settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case "Victor Albuquerque v. Saraswat Co-operation Bank Ltd.", AIR 1988 (Bom.) 346 that:-
"where the facts showing clear negligence of party during entire period of limitation and no sufficient cause sustained for delay in filing appeal, the delay cannot be condoned."
11. The Hon'ble National Commission in case "Smita Madhav Patki versus National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors.", 2013 (1) CPC 381 held in para Nos. 10 & 11 as follows:-
"10. After going through the application for condonation of delay, it is apparent that petitioner has made absolutely vague averments. The reasons mentioned in the application, can by no stretch of imagination be said to be the "sufficient cause".
11. It is well settled that "sufficient cause" for non-appearance in each case, is a question of fact."
12. It is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case "Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. Versus Living Media India Ltd. & Anr.", 2013(2) CPR 306 (SC) in para No. 13 as follows:-
"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. 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." First Appeal No. 102 of 2012 7
13. No sufficient reason or explanation is given in the application for condonation of delay, as such, all the applications of the applicant for condonation of delay of 758 days are meritless and the same are dismissed.
Main Case
14. As the applications for condonation of delay have been dismissed, therefore, the appeals are also dismissed.
15. The arguments in these applications were heard on 11.7.2013 and the orders were reserved. Now the orders be communicated to the parties.
16. The appeals could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(Piare Lal Garg)
Presiding Member
July 12, 2013. (Vinod Kumar Gupta)
as Member
First Appeal No. 102 of 2012 8