State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Estate Officer Hsvp Sonepat vs Sh. Rajan Bhatia on 24 June, 2024
FA/425/2024 HARYANA SHEHRI VIKAS PRADHIKARAN & ANR. VS. MR. RAJAN BHATIA DOD: 24.06.2024
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION
Date of Institution:13.06.2024
Date of hearing : 24.06.2024
Date of Decision : 24.06.2024
FIRST APPEAL NO. 425/2024
IN THE MATTER OF
1.ESTATE OFFICER HSVP SONEPAT HARYANA SHEHRI VIKAS PRADHIKARAN (HSVP) HUDA COMPLEX, DAHIYA BADSHAH ROAD SECTOR-15, SONEPAT, HARYANA-131001
2. HARAYA SHEHRI VIKAS PRADHIKARAN (HSVP) THROUGH ITS CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR C-3, HSVP (HQ) SECTOR-6 PANCHKULA, HARAYANA-134109 (Through Mr. Piyush Chandel, Advocate Mob. 8968217890 & 9816751008) ...APPLICANT/APPELLANT VERSUS MR. RAJAN BHATIA S/O LATE MR. KANWAR BHAN BHATIA R/O 3B/6, ASAF ALI ROAD NEW DELHI-110002 ....NON-APPLICANT/ RESPONDENT CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT) HON'BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Present: Mr. Piyush Chandel, counsel for the appellant. (Mobile No. 8968217892 and Email: [email protected] & [email protected] ).
None for the respondent.
PER: HON'BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
1. The present appeal has been filed on 13.06.2024 challenging the impugned order dated 07.11.2022 passed in Complaint Case DISMISSED Page 1 of 8 FA/425/2024 HARYANA SHEHRI VIKAS PRADHIKARAN & ANR. VS. MR. RAJAN BHATIA DOD: 24.06.2024 No.203/2021 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District), Tis Hazari Courts Complex, Tis Hazari, Delhi - 110054 wherein the complaint was allowed.
2. This order will dispose off an application bearing IA No. 1767/2024 seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, filed along with the appeal. Affidavit of Mr. Mohinder Singh, Estate Officer of the appellant has been filed along with this application.
3. Record has been carefully and thoroughly perused.
4. The application has been moved under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as it is arising out of Complaint Case No.203/2021.
5. Application for condonation of delay has been filed on various grounds. Para No. 2 to 6 of the application read as under:
"2. That the consumer complaint was decided on 07.11.2022. In the said complaint the Appellant was directed to refund the pleaded amount to the respondent along with an interest of 9% P.a.
3. That the Appellant could not prefer the present Appeal on time because of the late communication of the impugned order.
4. That on 13.06.2023, the HSVP engaged the counsel for filing of the appeal before the SCDRC against the final order dated 07.11.2022. The counsel which was engaged vide letter dated 13.06.2023 has not prepared the appeal on time and the same was prepared by the Counsel in the month of February, 2024 and thereafter the appeal was filed before the SCDRC on 05.02.2024. That due to some objection directed by the filing branch, the appeal petition was not approved by the filing branch and neither the counsel has removed the objections nor the counsel has informed regarding the removal of objections.
5. That due to the delay behaviour of the engaged counsel, the HSVP has decided to engage the other counsel with respect to the present appeal before the DISMISSED Page 2 of 8 FA/425/2024 HARYANA SHEHRI VIKAS PRADHIKARAN & ANR. VS. MR. RAJAN BHATIA DOD: 24.06.2024 SCDRC, Delhi on 02.05.2024 and withdrawn the engagement of previous counsel on 02/05/2024. Copy of all the office communications is attached herewith as Annexure A-8 (Colly.)
6. That counsel dedicated time to draft the First Appeal and obtain approval from the petitioner officials."
6. To adjudicate this issue, we deem it appropriate to refer to Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which provides as under:-
41. "Any person aggrieved by an order made by the District Commission may prefer an appeal against such order to the State Commission on the grounds of facts or law within a period of forty-five 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 forty-five days, if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within that period:
Provided further that no appeal by a person, who is required to pay any amount in terms of an order of the District Commission, shall be entertained by the State Commission unless the appellant has deposited fifty percent of that amount in the manner as may be prescribed:
Provided also that no appeal shall lie from any order passed under sub-section (1) of section 81 by the District Commission pursuant to a settlement by mediation under section 80."
7. A perusal of the aforesaid statutory position reflects that the appeal against an order should be preferred within a period of forty five days from the date of impugned order. On perusal of record before us, it is clear that the impugned order was pronounced on 07.11.2022 and the present appeal was filed on 13.06.2024 i.e. after a delay of 539 days.
8. In order to condone the delay, the appellant has to satisfy this Commission that there was sufficient cause for preferring the appeal DISMISSED Page 3 of 8 FA/425/2024 HARYANA SHEHRI VIKAS PRADHIKARAN & ANR. VS. MR. RAJAN BHATIA DOD: 24.06.2024 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 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."
9. 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 DISMISSED Page 4 of 8 FA/425/2024 HARYANA SHEHRI VIKAS PRADHIKARAN & ANR. VS. MR. RAJAN BHATIA DOD: 24.06.2024 of the consumer disputes, will get defeated if the appeals and revisions, which are highly belated are entertained."
10. 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 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.
11. 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.
DISMISSED Page 5 of 8FA/425/2024 HARYANA SHEHRI VIKAS PRADHIKARAN & ANR. VS. MR. RAJAN BHATIA DOD: 24.06.2024
12. Reverting to the material available before us, we find that the impugned order was passed on 07.11.2022 and the period of limitation starts from the date of order which had expired on 22.12.2022. However, the reasons stated for the delay are that vide letter dated 13.06.2023 the appellant engaged a counsel on 13.06.2023 for filing the appeal who has not prepared the appeal on time and the same was prepared in the month of February, 2024; thereafter the appeal was filed on 05.02.2024 but due to some objection directed by the registry of this Commission, the appeal was not approved; neither counsel has removed the objections nor he has informed the appellant regarding removal of objections; thereafter the appellant engaged a fresh counsel for filing the appeal and withdrew engagement of previous counsel on 02.05.2024 and the fresh engaged counsel dedicated time to draft the appeal and obtain approval from the appellant.
13. A perusal of Annexure A-1 i.e. extra certified copy of impugned order shows that the appellant has applied for certified copy on 19.10.2023, it was prepared and delivered on the same day i.e. 19.10.2023. Even if we consider that the appellant has received the copy of the impugned order on 19.10.2023, in this circumstance also, the appellant was expected to file the appeal within the limitation period i.e. by 23.11.2023. Thus, still there is delay of 193 days in filing the appeal.
14. As per para 4 of the application, the appellant has engaged a counsel to file the appeal who prepared the appeal in the month of February, 2024. However, the appellant has remained silent to mention what steps have been taken by their counsel till February, 2024 to prepare the draft for filing the appeal. No specific date of February, 2024 has been mentioned. The appellant is even silent about the name of counsel who was initially appointed/engaged.
15. The appellant has averred in para 4 of the application that they have engaged fresh counsel on 13.06.2024 for filing the appeal. On the DISMISSED Page 6 of 8 FA/425/2024 HARYANA SHEHRI VIKAS PRADHIKARAN & ANR. VS. MR. RAJAN BHATIA DOD: 24.06.2024 other hand, the appellant has preferred not to disclose the reasons as to why they took too much time to engage a fresh counsel for filing the appeal whereas the impugned order was pronounced on 07.11.2022.
16. The appellant has not mentioned name as well as details of erstwhile counsel who had to remove the objections raised by the registry of this Commission and who had not informed the appellant regarding the removal of objections. It has also not been averred as to the specific date when previous appeal was filed, its diary number etc. and any reason as to why objections have not been removed and on the other hand, fresh/present appeal has been filed. It is pertinent to mention that even in the appeal also, the factum of filing any appeal in February, 2024 which was rendering for removal of objections as averred in para 4 of appeal under disposal has been mentioned.
17. Furthermore, even if we assumed that the said delay was on behalf of red tape in the bureaucratic machinery, the reasons submitted by the appellant cannot be justification for condoning such delay. Our view is further fortified by decision of the Apex Court in the case of Office of the Chief Post Master General and Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. and Ors. reported in 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 DISMISSED Page 7 of 8 FA/425/2024 HARYANA SHEHRI VIKAS PRADHIKARAN & ANR. VS. MR. RAJAN BHATIA DOD: 24.06.2024 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."
18. Relying on the above settled law and considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the appellant for the delay except inculpating the government lengthy approval procedures. According to us, the appellant has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent sufficient reasons to condone such delay. As a result, it is abundantly clear from the above that the appellant was moving at its own pace unmindful that the prescribed period to file an appeal is 45 days from the date of impugned judgment.
19. Therefore, the application (IA-1767/2024) filed by the appellant seeking condonation of delay cannot be admitted and accordingly, the same is dismissed on the above grounds.
20. 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.
21. File be consigned to record room.
JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT) PINKI MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Pronounced on 24.06.2024.
DISMISSED Page 8 of 8