State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
J.Ramachandra, Rpf Constable, ... vs 1.1.The Territorial Manager, ... on 26 April, 2013
BEFORETHE AP. STATE CONSUMER DIPSUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: HYDERABAD F.A.No.1081/2011 against I.A.No.75/2011 in Sr.No.557/2011, District Forum,Y.S.R.(Kadapa) Dist. Between: J.Ramachandra, S/o.Ganganna, Aged about 33 years, RPF Constable, Yeerraguntla Railway Station, R/o.D.No.3/183, Sreeramulupeta, Yerraguntla, Y.S.R.(Kadapa) District. Appellant/ Petitioner/ Complainant. And 1.The Territorial Manager, LPG, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Kurnool Town and District . 2. Vijayalakshmi Gas Agencies , rep. by its proprietor, Kamalapuram Town and Mandal, Y.S.R.District. 3. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Division Office , Kadapa, Y.S.R.District. Respondents/ Respondents/ Opp.parties Counsel for the Appellant : M/s.Y.V.S.S.Siva Sarma Counsel for the Respondents : Mr. T.Srinivas R1 Mr.E.Venugopal Reddy-R3 CORAM : SMT.M.SHREESHA, HONBLE INCHARGE PRESIDENT, AND SRI S.BHUJANGA RAO, HONBLE MEMBER
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN Oral Order : ( per Sri S.Bhujanga Rao, Honble Member) *** This appeal is directed against the order dt. 8.9.2011 of the District Forum, Y.S.R.(Kadapa Dist.) made in I.A.No.75/2011 in S.R.No.557/2011 .
The appellant is the petitioner/complainant and the respondents are the respondents/opp.parties in I.A.No.75/2011 in S.R.No.557/2011 on the file of District Forum,Y.S.R.(Kadapa ) Dist.
The petitioner filed a Consumer Complaint before the Dist. Forum against the respondents herein seeking direction to the respondents to pay Rs.10 lakhs, with interest, towards assured sum, under the policy, on the death of his wife. Since there is delay in filing the complaint, the complainant filed the petition u/s.24A of the Consumer Protection Act seeking condonation of delay of 81 days in filing the complaint .
The averments of the petition in brief are as follows:
The petitioner has been working as a constable in Railway Protection Force, Yerraguntla Railway Station, Y.S.R.Dist. He had LPG connection through respondent no.2 dealer. The respondent no.1 is the territory manager of respondent no.2 and both the respondents have a comprehensive insurance policy, for the benefit of LPG customers to compensate, in the event of accident. The policy covers any untoward accident occurred within the premises of the customer, who would take and avail LPG connection . On 20.3.2009 , at about 1 p.m. while Sowjanya , the wife of the petitioner was cooking at their house in Yerraguntla, there was gas leakage and suddenly flames engulfed, causing serious burn injuries to the said Sowjanya and she died in the hospital, while undergoing treatment on the same day i.e. 20.3.2009. The petitioner being the customer and legal heir of the deceased entitled to claim compensation under the policy. The petitioner made a claim submitting all reports to the opp.parties but the claim was not settled. Hence he filed the complaint.
It is further stated that the complaint was to be filed on or before 19.3.2011, but from February 2011, the petitioner was deputed to work at various places on duty as RPF Constable and due to work pressure he could not approach the counsel for filing the complaint in time. At present, the petitioner could get time, because of low work pressure and consulted the advocate to file the complaint. The petitioner came to know that there was delay of 81 days in filing the complaint. Hence, he filed the petition.
Resisting the petition the respondents 1 and 2 filed counter contending that soonafter the information about the fire accident was received by R1, a team of officials from R1 office along with R2 rushed to the accident site and conducted investigation and prepared investigation report based on the facts noticed at the accident site.
These respondents further contended that the petitioner was a consumer of R2 holding single bottle connection (SBC) i.e. one LPG cylinder only bearing consumer no.7019. The Single cylinder connection was registered at D.No.3/147, Vempally Road, Yerraguntla whereas the accident took place in a house situated at Nethaji School lane, Yerraguntla. So, the use of the cylinder was at unauthorised premises by the petitioner. The accident has not occurred at the registered premises on 20.3.2009. There was another cylinder found at the accident premises, which was inexplicable, as the petitioner was holding a single cylinder connection with R2. The R2 supplied refill cylinder on 18.2.2009. It was in use for more than 30 days, whereas, as per the police reports, that the cylinder which was in use in the kitchen was found intact at the accident premises. Therefore, it was not correct, that the accident occurred due to supply of defective gas cylinder and there was leakage of gas. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
Respondent no.3 filed separate counter contending that the petitioner has not filed any documentary evidence to prove that he was deputed to work at various places on duty from February,2011. So, the petitioner could have filed a complaint much earlier, without waiting till last hours . The petitioner sent a legal notice on 10.11.2009 and 6.12.2010 to the respondents demanding to settle his claim. The petitioner was busy after Feburary,2011, as such, he ought to have filed the complaint atleast after issuance of the second notice dt.6.12.2010. Therefore , the delay could not be condoned. The petition is therefore liable to be dismissed.
Upon hearing the counsel for both the parties and on consideration of the material on record, the District Forum dismissed the petition, observing that the cause shown by the petitioner is not sufficient cause to condone the delay.
Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner/complainant preferred the above appeal questioning the legality and validity of the order.
We heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record including the written arguments filed by them.
Now the point for consideration is whether the impugned order of the District Forum is liable to be set aside as prayed for by the appellant/petitioner?
There was delay of 81 days in filing the complaint before the District Forum by the petitioner. The cause shown for the delay in filing the appeal is that the petitioner has been working as constable in Railway Protection Force, Yerraguntla and was being deputed to work at various places on duty from February,2011 and due to work pressure also, he could not approach the counsel, to file the complaint in time and he could get some time because of low work pressure and consulted the counsel to file the complaint and in the said process there is a delay of 81 days, in filing the complaint. The respondents denied the above cause as created for the purpose of the petition.
The cause shown by the petitioner for the delay is not convincing, reasonable and justifiable ground to condone the delay of 81 days. It is not in dispute that the petitioner got issued the second notice on 6.12.2010 and the deputation of the complainant was from 6.12.2010 till February,2011. The complainant ought to have filed the complaint during the said period. As rightly observed by the District Forum there are different ways of communications to contact advocate and get the complaint filed. The petitioner failed to give various stations where he was deputed to work, to know the distance from those places to Yerraguntla.
Except self serving statement, that due to pressure of work, he could not file the complaint, within time, the petitioner did not choose to place any material on record, to prove his pressure of work, which prevented him from contacting any advocate to prepare and file the complaint.
In view of the above facts and circumstances, the petitioner failed to prove the cause shown by him for the delay in filing the complaint. Even if the cause is proved by the petitioner, it is not sufficient to condone the delay in filing the complaint .
The Honble Supreme Court in ANSHU AGARAWAL vs. NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY reported in IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), has explained the scope of condonation of delay in a matter where the special courts/tribunals have constituted, in order to provide expeditious remedies, to the person aggrieved and Consumer Protection Act is one of them. The Supreme Court held as follows:
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.
The apex court in another case in BALWANTH SINGH (dead) Vs. Jagdish Singh & Ors. V (2010) SLT 790 = III (2010) CLT 201 (SC) = Civil Appeal no.1166 of 2006 was pleased to hold as follows:
The party should show that besides acting bona fide, it had taken all possible steps within its power and control and had approached the Court without any unnecessary delay. The test is whether or not a cause is sufficient to see whether it could have been avoided by the party by the exercise of due care and attention (Advanced Law Lexicon, P Ramanatha Aiyar, 3rd Edition 2005.
The Apex Court in a recent judgement in CICILY KALLARACKAL vs. VEHICLE FACTORY reported in IV 2012 CPJ referring to the above referred judgement in Anshulal Agarwal vs. NOIDA, held in the instant case condonation of such inordinate delay without any sufficient cause would amount to substitute period of limitation by this Court in place of period prescribed by the legislator for filing the special leave petition. Therefore we do not see any cogent reason to condone the delay The National Commission in RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD vs. VISHNU CHAND SHARMA reported in IV 2012 CPJ 676 (NC) held that the expression sufficient cause cannot be erased from Section 5 of the Limitation Act by adopting excessive liberal approach which would defeat the very purpose of Section 5 of Limitation Act. There must be some cause which can be termed as a sufficient one for the purpose of delay of condonation.
In the recent order reported in 1(2013) CPJ I (NC) in the case UHBVNL vs. Ramsaran and another , the Honble National Commission held as follows:
No doubt the words sufficient cause should receive liberal construction , so as to advance substantial justice. However, when it is found that the applicants were most negligent in defending the case and their non action and want of bonafide are clearly imputable , the court would not help such a party. After all sufficient cause is an elastic expression for which no hard and fast guidelines can be given..
Having regard to the facts and circumstances discussed above and the legal position referred to above, we hold that the petitioner/complainant failed to show sufficient cause to condone the delay of 81 days in filing the complaint. We do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the District Forum. Hence the appeal fails.
In the result the appeal is dismissed, confirming the order of the District Forum. However, without costs in view of the facts and circumstances of the case.
INCHARGE PRESIDENT MEMBER Pm* Dt. 26.4.2013