State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Bathinda Development Authority vs Sanjeev Kumar on 5 June, 2017
FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.378 of 2017
Date of Institution : 22.05.2017
Order Reserved on: 01.06.2017
Date of Decision : 05.06.2017
The Bathinda Development Authority (formerly PUDA), BDA
Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda through its Chief Administrator.
.....Appellant/opposite party
Versus
1. Sanjeev Kumar S/o Sh. Ramesh Chand,
2. Dayawanti W/o Sh. Ramesh Chand,
Both C/o Ramesh Tea Company, Chowk Street, Rampura Phul,
District Bathinda.
3. Sunita Rani W/o Sh. Rattan Kumar, R/o Opp. Arya Samaj Mandir,
Bhucho Mandi, Tehsil & District Bathinda.
4. Kiran Lata W/o Sh. Ram Kumar, C/o Singh Digital Studio, VPO
Nathana, Tehsil & District Bathinda.
.....Respondents/complainants
First Appeal against order dated
07.12.2016 passed by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Bathinda.
Quorum:-
Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member
Smt. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Balwinder Singh, Advocate ............................................ First Appeal No.378 of 2017 2 J.S KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER :-
Miscellaneous Application No.1074 of 2017 (Delay) This order shall dispose of this application filed by the appellant for condonation of delay of 121 days in filing the appeal. It is stated in this application that the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda (in short the 'District Forum') passed the impugned order on 07.12.2016. The certified copy whereof was prepared on 15.12.2016 and it was delivered to the appellant on 21.12.2016. It was forwarded by the counsel of OP vide his letter dated 26.12.2016 and it was received in the office of OP on 27.12.2016. On 30.01.2017, concerned assistant put up the copy of order and forwarded the file to Assistant Estate Officer on the same day, but it was returned by the latter to the concerned Assistant for expressing the suggestions regarding the order. The concerned assistant put up the file to the Section Officer for calculating the due amount, as per the order of the District Forum. Section Officer sent the file back to the concerned assistant on 06.01.2017 after calculating the due amount. The file was again put up before Assistant Estate Officer on 10.01.2017 for seeking the approval for filing the appeal. Assistant Estate Office wrote to put up the case for seeking approval for filing the appeal and on 11.01.2017, the file was forwarded to the Senior Law Officer, Bathinda for obtaining opinion.
Senior Law Officer Bathinda on 13.01.2017 returned the file pointing out that this case belonged to an OUVGL site and hence approval be taken from Head Office PUDA Mohali. The concerned assistant put up a draft to Additional Chief Administrator through Assistant Estate First Appeal No.378 of 2017 3 Officer on 17.01.2017 to seek the guidance from Head Office PUDA Mohali. The file was returned on 18.01.2017 by Estate Office to the concerned assistant for carrying out the correction in the draft and on 19.01.2017, it was signed by Estate Officer and file returned to the concerned assistant for dispatch and dispatcher recorded the number of the draft on 23.01.2017. Some correspondence took place between the appellant and Head Office PUDA. Vide letter no.9336 dated 31.03.2017, Head Office Mohali wrote to the office of appellant to file the appeal. This letter has been received in the office of appellant on 10.04.2017 and by the concerned assistant on 12.04.2017. The matter was discussed telephonically with the Law Officer, PUDA on 12.04.2017 at Mohali, who advised to appoint counsel at their own level. Holidays intervened from 13.04.2017 to 16.04.2017 and the concerned assistant put up the file to Additional Chief Administrator, BDA Bathinda to seek approval for appointment of counsel and for getting the requisite bank draft of Rs.25,000/- prepared. The approval for preparing the draft of Rs.25,000/- was accorded by the Head Office on 27.04.2017 and concerned assistant sent the file to the accounts branch for preparing the bank draft and it sent the file back on 02.05.2017 after preparing the bank draft. Copy of the order alongwith copy of the concerned file was forwarded to panel counsel at Chandigarh on 25.04.2017, who studied the file and raised certain queries telephonically, which were answered through an email on 04.05.2017. The panel counsel studied the file and prepared the appeal alongwith other application. On 18.05.2017, the affidavits were got signed and attested and were First Appeal No.378 of 2017 4 conveyed to the panel counsel at Chandigarh on 19.05.2017. The delay of 121 days which took place is sought to be condoned by the appellant in this appeal.
2. We have heard learned counsel for appellant Sh. Balwinder Singh, Advocate and also examined the record of the case. Affidavit of Anmol Singh Dhaliwal, PSC, Estate Officer has been filed on the record in this regard. From appraisal of the record of the appeal, it is evident that the order was received by OP on 21.12.2016, as per statement contained in application for condonation of delay. No prompt decision was taken to file the appeal by the appellant in this case. Lethargic and dilatory attitude has been shown by the appellant in shifting the file from one office to another. The present time is the time of fast technology and such long standing delay is not expected on the part of officials. Presently, fax machines, emails, etc. are available in the Government Offices, whereupon the file can be sent forthwith and decision taken thereon promptly. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is a special enactment enacted by the legislature with the sole aim to provide speedy remedy to the aggrieved parties. This is a special Act designed to protect the interest of the consumer against their undue exploitation. In view of law laid down by the Apex Court in case titled as "Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority"
IV(2011)C.P.J.-63 (NC), wherein it has been held that special period of limitation has been prescribed by Consumer Protection Act to file the appeal against the order by the aggrieved party. The very purpose of the above C.P. Act is to provide speedy disposal of the First Appeal No.378 of 2017 5 cases in a summary manner. We are of this view that law of limitation operates equally to both government institutions and private litigants and it recognize no such distinction between the two. We are not impressed with the grounds put forth in this case seeking condonation of delay of inordinate delay of 121 days in filling the appeal. In case, such stale matters are allowed to be condoned, it would strike at the very purpose for which Consumer Protection Act has been enacted by the legislature. We find that delay is quite inordinate in this case and legal right has vested in the respondents of this appeal by efflux of time, which can be taken away only on the existence of sufficient ground, which actually handicapped the appellant in filing the appeal within time. We find no merit in this application for condoning the delay of 121 days and the same stands dismissed.
Main Appeal:
3. Since, the application for condonation of delay has been dismissed, hence the appeal is barred by time and it is ordered to be dismissed in limine.
4. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- in this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount, alongwith interest, which accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the respondents of this appeal, being complainants, in equal shares, by way of crossed cheques/demand drafts after expiry of period of 45 days from this order.First Appeal No.378 of 2017 6
5. Arguments in this appeal were heard on 01.06.2017 and the order was reserved. Certified copies of the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.
6. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(J. S. KLAR) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (SURINDER PAL KAUR) MEMBER June 05, 2017 MM