State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. vs Kanwarjit Singh on 1 March, 2016
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
Misc. Application No.3214 of 2015
In/and
First Appeal No.1209 of 2015
Date of institution : 23.11.2015
Date of decision : 01.03.2016
1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Patiala, through its
Superintending Engineer, Jail Road, Gurdaspur.
2. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Division, Gurdaspur,
through its Executive Engineer.
3. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., through its Sub
Divisional Officer, Sub-Division City, Gudaspur, Tehsil and
District Gurdaspur.
....Appellants/Opposite Parties
Versus
Kanwarjit Singh, son of Sh. Amarjit Singh, Village Salimpur Arayian,
Post Office: Hayat Nagar, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur.
....Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal against the order dated
08.09.2015 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurdaspur.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President
Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member
Present:-
For the appellants : Shri A.K. Sharma, Advocate For the respondent : None.
JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH, PRESIDENT :
M.A.No.3214 of 2015 (Delay):
The applicants/appellants have filed this application for condoning the delay of 16 days in filing the appeal; which has been preferred against the order dated 08.09.2015 passed by District Misc. Application No.3214 of 2015 2 In/and First Appeal No.1209 of 2015 Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurdaspur (in short, "District Forum"), vide which the complaint filed by the respondent/ complainant, Kanwarjit Singh, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was partly allowed with Rs.2,000/-, as cost of litigation, and the opposite parties were directed to withdraw the impugned bill dated 24.09.2014 for Rs.1,25,860/- and to refund the related amount, if already deposited, after making a deduction of Rs.16,288/- therefrom, within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order and failing that to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum and also to pay Rs.3,000/-, as compensation. As per the contentions made in the application, the delay in filing the appeal was on account of official process adopted by the appellants. The copy of the order was prepared on 08.10.2015 and the legal opinion was sought from the counsel, who was engaged in District Forum, Gurdaspur, on 12.10.2015 and the file was received on 14.10.2015. The case was sent to the Legal Cell at Patiala on 16.10.2015 for obtaining approval. After the Legal Cell processed the case, a message was received by them on 09.11.2015 for filing the appeal. Thereafter, their concerned official visited A.G. Office, Punjab, to get the counsel engaged from their panel; who was engaged on the same day. That counsel asked them to get the Bank draft of 50% of awarded amount, power of attorney and to get the affidavit signed from the concerned official. That official again visited Gurdaspur office to get the necessary documents and Bank draft. After the needful was done, the appeal was filed.Misc. Application No.3214 of 2015 3
In/and First Appeal No.1209 of 2015
2. We have heard learned counsel for the applicants/appellants, as no one appeared from the side of the respondent/complainant at the time of arguments. We have also carefully gone through the records.
3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants/appellants that the requisite procedure was to be followed before filing the appeal and while following that procedure, the delay occurred. It is very much clear from the contents of the application that this delay was beyond the control of the applicants/appellants and, as such, it is to be termed as sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time. He prayed that the delay of 16 days in filing the appeal be condoned.
4. It is now well settled that in case of the State/Statutory Corporation, certain amount of latitude is not impermissible, while condoning the delay and filing the appeals. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and Another 2010 (5) SCC 459 that the said latitude is not impermissible in case of State, as it represents collective cause of the community and the decisions are taken by the officers/agencies at a slow place and encumbered process of pushing the files from table to table consumes considerable time causing delay. However, it was also held therein that still it is to be seen, whether the party had offered any plausible/tangible explanation for the delay in filing the appeal?
5. It is very much clear from the contents of the application that delay upto 09.11.2015 stands explained; as upto that date the Misc. Application No.3214 of 2015 4 In/and First Appeal No.1209 of 2015 applicants/appellants were making efforts to get the legal opinion and get the case processed. After the nod was given for filing the appeal, the Advocate from the panel of the appellant-Corporation was engaged and the documents were called from the office and the appeal was filed. It is not stated in the application, as to on which date the office of the A.G. Punjab was visited, the date on which the papers were given to the counsel, the date on which the official visited Gurdaspur for collecting necessary documents and the date on which those documents were given to the counsel. As per the settled law, the applicants/appellants were required to give those dates, in order to enable this Commission to determine, whether there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay keeping in view those dates, in order to determine the efforts made and inability on the part of the applicants/appellants to file the appeal in time. It is also pertinent to note that affidavit filed in support of the contentions made in the application is altogether silent about the cause, so disclosed in the application. The deponent has not deposed about all the facts, so stated therein. It cannot be said from the contents of the application itself that the applicants/appellants were unable to file the appeal within time and the delay in filing the same was beyond their control.
6. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority 2011 (14) SCC 578 that while deciding an application for condonation of delay in the cases under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the Court has to keep in mind that special period of limitation has been Misc. Application No.3214 of 2015 5 In/and First Appeal No.1209 of 2015 prescribed under the Act for filing the appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated, if the highly belated petitions are to be entertained.
7. No doubt, there is only 16 days' delay in filing the appeal, but the applicants/appellants have failed to show any sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time and we are not inclined to condone that delay. The application is dismissed accordingly.
Main Appeal:
8. In view of the dismissal of the application for condoning the delay, the appeal stands dismissed, as barred by time.
9. The applicants/appellants had deposited a sum of Rs.2,600/- at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the respondent/complainant, by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days of the sending of certified copy of the order to them.
(JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH) PRESIDENT (VINOD KUMAR GUPTA) MEMBER March 01, 2016.
(Gurmeet S)