State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Punjab State Electricity Board vs Mittan Lal on 25 January, 2012
2nd Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
Misc. Appl. No.109 of 2012
In/and
First Appeal No.399 of 2006
Date of Institution: 17.01.2011.
Date of Decision: 25.01.2012.
1. Punjab State Electricity Board, H.O. Patiala through Senior Executive
Engineer, Operation Division, Malout, District Muktsar.
2. Assistant Executive Engineer, Operation City, Sub Division, Malout,
Tehsil Malout, District Muktsar.
....Appellants.
Versus
Mittan Lal S/o Sh. Bishan Chand, Resident of Het Ram Colony, Karon Road,
Malout, Tehsil Malout, District Muktsar.
....Respondent.
Application for condonation of delay of
126 days in filing the application for
restoration of appeal
In Re:
First Appeal no.399 of 2006 dismissed in
default vide order dated 04.07.2011 by
this Commission.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member.
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Member.
Present:-
For the applicants/appellants: Ms Geeta Sharma, Advocate. INDERJIT KAUSHIK, PRESIDING MEMBER:-
Applicants/appellants-Punjab State Electricity Board & Another (In short "the applicants") have filed this application for condonation of 126 days' delay in filing the application for restoration of the appeal dismissed in default vide order dated 04.07.2011.
2. It was submitted by applicants that during the pendency of the appeal, Sh. K.K. Bansal, Advocate, who was counsel for the applicants was appointed as President of the District Forum and due to this reason, none Misc. Appl. No.109 of 2011 2 In/and First Appeal No.399 of 2006 appeared before the Commission on 11.10.2010, 25.02.2011, 20.04.2011 and 04.07.2011 and the appeal was dismissed in default vide order dated 04.07.2011.
3. The order dated 04.07.2011 was received on 16.08.2011 in the office of the applicants and thereafter, the applicants tried to contact the counsel at Chandigarh and also visited personally to enquire about the reasons for non-appearance of the counsel on the above said dates. The applicants were informed about the appointment of Sh. K.K. Bansal, Advocate as President of the District Forum and the file along with record was taken back from the counsel.
4. After receiving the record and file of the case, the file was sent to legal department at Patiala to seek their legal opinion and approval to appoint the new counsel. The head office asked certain queries regarding the appeal from the Malout office and after furnishing the queries, legal opinion was given to file the application for recalling and setting aside the order dated 04.07.2011. The delay of 126 days was neither intentional nor willful, but was due to the reasons beyond the control of the applicants and prayed that the delay of 126 days in filing the application may be condoned and the order dated 04.07.2011 may be recalled.
5. We have gone through the pleadings of the application and have heard the learned counsel for the applicants.
6. The only ground for condonation of delay in filing the application taken by the applicants is that the counsel who was conducting the case earlier was appointed as President of the District Forum and the file was sent to the head office at Patiala for taking legal opinion and approval to appoint the new counsel. The applicants have failed to show sufficient cause for condoning the delay and mere mentioning that the approval had to be obtained from the head office situated at Patiala and that caused the delay, is not a sufficient cause. In these days of advance communication technology, it cannot be expected that taking of approval from the head office of the Misc. Appl. No.109 of 2011 3 In/and First Appeal No.399 of 2006 applicant situated at Patiala will take more than four months. The application is vague and does not disclose the sufficient reason or any explanation as to how the delay of 126 days has occurred. Moreover, it is not mentioned in the application as to when the file was sent to the head office for taking legal opinion and approval and when it was received. No explanation is coming forward and from these facts, it is clear that the attitude of the applicants seems to be most casual and they have taken the things for granted that by mentioning the procedural delays, the delay will be condoned, but the law is now otherwise and the rigors of the Limitation Act are to be applied. Such a huge delay can be condoned only when there is sufficient explanation and the delay occurred due to the facts and the events beyond the control of a party and not in routine matters.
7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case "Kamlesh Babu and Ors. Vs Lajpat Rai Sharma and Others", 2008(3) The Punjab Law Reporter-455, while interpreting and explaining the scope of Section 3(1) of the Limitation Act, observed as follows:-
"It is well settled that Section 3(1) of the Limitation Act casts a duty upon the court to dismiss a suit or an appeal or an application, if made after the prescribed period, although, limitation is not set up as a defence".
8. Recently, the Hon'ble National Commission in case "HUDA Vs Supreme System", II (2011) CPJ-70(NC), observed as follows:-
"In the present case, the inordinate delay of 107 days cannot be condoned without showing sufficient cause. The only reason given in the application is that the delay in filing the revision petition was due to administrative reasons. Petitioner has not shown any cause much less a sufficient cause for condoning the delay".
9. Hon'ble National Commission in case "Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited Vs DAC Research and Health Specialities Pvt. Ltd.", 2009(1) Consumer Law Today-532, also observed that law of Misc. Appl. No.109 of 2011 4 In/and First Appeal No.399 of 2006 limitation does not give any special exemption or indulgence for relaxation of time limit for a Government department and observed in Para-5 (relevant portion) as follows:-
"Law of limitation does not give any special exemption or indulgence in time limit for relaxation of time limits for a Government Department, especially, when a right has been created in favour of one of the parties".
10. In view of above discussion and the law laid down, it is clear that the delay has to be explained and the excuse of procedural delays cannot be taken into consideration if the delay has not been properly explained. In the present case, as discussed above, no valid reasons or the explanations have been given for condonation of the delay of 126 days.
11. In view of the above discussion, the application filed by the applicants for condonation of delay of 126 days in filing the present application, being without any merit, is dismissed.
(Inderjit Kaushik) Presiding Member (Piare Lal Garg) Member January 25, 2012.
(Gurmeet S)