National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Ludhiana Improvement Trust vs Ms. Harpreet Kaur on 9 December, 2013
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1836 OF 2013 (From the order dated 20.09.2012 in First Appeal No. 1571/2009 of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh) With IA/2947/2013 IA/2948/2013 (Stay, Condonation of Delay) Ludhiana Improvement Trust Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana through its Chairman/Administrator Petitioner/Complainant Versus Ms. Harpreet Kaur W/o Sh. Mandhir Singh R/o H. No. 22 GF, Rajguru Nagar, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana, Punjab Respondent/Opp. Party (OP) BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Aditya Singh, Advocate PRONOUNCED ON 9th December, 2013 O R D E R
PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 20.09.2012 passed by Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (in short, the State Commission) in Appeal No. 1571 of 2009 Ludhiana Improvement Trust Vs. Ms. Harpreet Kaur by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld and special cost of Rs.10,000/- was imposed.
2. Learned District Forum while allowing complaint of the complainant/respondent quashed demand of Rs.9,80,989/- raised by OP/petitioner and OP was directed to issue No Dues Certificate in favour of the complainant and further awarded cost of Rs.2,000/-.
Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed along with application for condonation of delay.
3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner on application for condonation of delay at admissions stage and perused record.
4. Petitioner has filed application for condonation of delay and paragraphs 1 & 2 of the application for condonation of delay read as under:
1. That the delay in the present matter has purely occasioned due to the administrative exigencies which had occasioned in the Petitioner Department as it took some time for the petitioner department to arrange for the record of the District Forum which was necessary for preparation of the present appeal after which further time was taken for getting necessary legal opinion for filing the present appeal because of which the limitation period in the present appeal got over.
2. That once the legal opinion was received petitioner immediately contacted its Advocate in Delhi who filed the present appeal at the earliest possible time.
Petitioner did not disclose period of delay to be condoned in application, but as per report of the office, there was delay of 62 days in filing revision petition. On 9.5.2013, Counsel for the petitioner prayed for adjournment to file affidavit in support of the application for condonation of delay. That was not filed on 22.8.2013, 12.11.2013 and 26.11.2013.
5. Perusal of application clearly reveals that petitioner has not given any date for arranging record of District Forum and time consumed in obtaining legal opinion and preparation of revision petition by the Advocate inspite of many opportunities.
6. As there is inordinate delay of 62 days, this delay cannot be condoned in the light of the following judgment passed by the Honble Apex Court.
7. In Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, it has been observed;
It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by S.5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the enquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant.
8. 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 petitions stands properly explained. 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.
9. Honble Supreme Court after exhaustively considering the case law on the aspect of condonation of delay observed in Oriental 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 for 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.
10. Honble Apex Court in 2012 (2) CPC 3 (SC) Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority observed as under:
It is also apposite 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.
11. Honble Apex Court in (2012) 3 SCC 563 Post Master General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. and Anr. has not condoned delay in filing appeal even by Government department and further observed that condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the Government departments.
Thus, it becomes clear that there is no reasonable explanation at all for condonation of inordinate delay of 62 days. In such circumstances, application for condonation of delay is dismissed. As application for condonation of delay has been dismissed, revision petition being barred by limitation is also liable to be dismissed.
12. Consequently, the revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed as barred by limitation at admission stage with no order as to costs.
Sd/-
( K.S. CHAUDHARI, J) PRESIDING MEMBER ..Sd/-
( DR. B.C. GUPTA ) MEMBER k