National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Superintendent Of Post Office vs Sandhya Das on 10 February, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 3247 OF 2014 (Against the Order dated 19/03/2014 in Appeal No. 1103/2013 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF POST, ASANSOL DIVISION, ASANSOL BURDWAN-713301 W.B. ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. SANDHYA DAS M/O. LATE INDRAJIT DAS AND W/O. LATE DULAL DAS, R/O. VILLAGE & POST OFFICE ICCHAPUR, RAOHANATH SMRITI KUNJA, POLICE STATION FARIDPUR (LAUDOHA BURDWAN W.B. ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN, PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Amrit Pal Singh, Advocate For the Respondent :
Dated : 10 Feb 2015 ORDER
1. This Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act") has been filed by the Superintendent of Post Office, Asansol Division, Burdwan, West Bengal, against order dated 19.03.2014 passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Kolkata (for short "the State Commission") in Appeal No. 1103 of 2013. By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the said Appeal, preferred by the Petitioner herein, on the ground of limitation, thereby upholding order dated 25.04.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Burdwan (for short "the District Forum") in D.F. Case No. 53 of 2010, preferred by the son of the Respondent herein. The District Forum, while negating the contention of the Petitioner that the life insurance claim, pursuant to death of the Insured, i.e. the father of the Complainant and Husband of the Respondent, was rightly repudiated since the Insured had died before expiry of 30 days from the date of the policy, had allowed the complaint and directed the Petitioner to pay to the Complainant a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from 23.06.2009, i.e. the date of lodging the claim, after deducting the first premium amount of Rs.4463/- paid to the Respondent. Besides, the Petitioner was also directed to pay Rs.5000/- as litigation costs.
2. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the District Forum, the Petitioner filed Appeal before the State Commission, however, with a delay of 163 days. As noted above, the State Commission has dismissed the Appeal on the ground of limitation. Hence, the present Revision Petition.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the Petitioner on the question of delay.
4. As noted above, there was a delay of 163 days in filing the Appeal before the State Commission. In paragraph no.2 of the application for condonation of delay, filed before the State Commission, the explanation furnished by the Petitioner was as under:
"2. That the Certified copy of the Judgment and Order was obtained by the conducting Advocate on 08.07.2013. Due to dispute between the Bar and the Bench the Certified copy cannot be obtained prior to 08.07.2013. After obtaining the Certified Copy the Appellant/Opposite Party prepared the inter Departmental Notes for vetting of Postmaster General from 22.07.2013 to 27.07.2013. The office of the Postmaster General send the Departmental Notes to the Postmaster General and the preparation for the said Notes the date was extend from 28.7.2013 to 02.08.2013. The processing to file submissions before the Ministry of Law took 9 days time i.e. 08.08.2013 to 16.08.2013. On 16.8.2013 the Appellant/Opposite Party send the letter to ASPO Asansol Sub-Division to handed over the File before the Ministry of Law and the proposal for filing Appeal was send by Superintendent of Post Office, Asansol Division on 23.7.2013 which was annexed with the said Appeal. Be it mentioned here that the Office of the Postal Service-III, Office of the Postmaster General had already instructed the Appellant/Opposite Party to obtained the opinion of Ministry of Law for filing the Appeal. Accordingly Ministry of Lawa send their opinion on 22.8.2013 and the appointment letter was issued on 5.9.2013 which was handed over to the Additional Standing Counsel for filing the Appeal on 12.9.2013 after obtaining the same from Ministry of Law & Justice. After 12.9.2013 the Advocate Concern call for a Conference with the Department with all relevant papers on 26.9.2013 and after receiving all the papers the Appeal was prepared and send to the Department for signing the same. But unfortunately at the relevant time the Superintendent of Post Offices was out of station (for) his official purpose for which the appeal would not be signed before 03.10.2013 in between Gandhi Birth Day and Mahalaya, Saturday and Sunday at come for which the Appeal was file on 07.10.2013 in between 193 days including statutory period of 30 days had already passed i.e. delay was for 163 days."
5. In our view, the explanation furnished by the Petitioner was wholly unsatisfactory. Though the impugned order had been passed by the District Forum on 25.04.2013 in the presence of Counsel for the parties, yet the Petitioner took more than two months in obtaining the certified copy of the order. This delay was sought to be explained by the Petitioner on specious plea that due to some dispute between the Bench and the Bar, it could not obtain the certified copy of the said order of the District Forum prior to 08.07.2013. We are unable to comprehend such a situation, where for more than two months the functioning of the District Forum would have come to a standstill. Besides, even after receiving the certified copy of the order of the District Forum, the Petitioner took more than one month in vetting/submitting the matter with the Ministry of Law & Justice for taking necessary action into the matter. The Ministry too took more than one month in assigning the matter to the Additional Standing Counsel for filing the Appeal before the State Commission. The said Counsel also took some time before filing the Appeal and ultimately filed the same before the State Commission on 07.10.2013. The cumulative effect of all the above exercise was that the Appeal filed before the State Commission was barred by delay of 163 days, over and above the 30 days statutory period, provided for filing the same.
6. It is pointed out by the office that this Revision Petition is also barred by limitation, as there is a delay of 59 days in filing the same. An application praying for condonation of the said delay has been filed along with the Revision Petition. In paragraph no. 2 of the said application, the explanation furnished is as under:
"2. That after taking the order from the State Commission i.e. 24.03.2014, the Divisional Office gone through the order of the Hon'ble State Commission and took the Administrative decision to file a Revision Petition and accordingly the file was sent to the Regional Office, Kolkata on 17.04.2014. The said Regional Office after going through the order and document on record sent file back to the Division Office, Asansol. Then the Asansol Division Office again send the file to Ministry of Law on 17.06.2014. The Ministry of Law, Kolkata after examination of the file send back the file back to Division Office, Asansol on 07.07.2014. The Division Office again send the said file for taking the decision on the advice of the Ministry of Law on 10.07.2014. The file remained under transit from 10.07.2014 to 13.07.2014. Thereafter, the brief note was prepared for filing the Revision Petition before the National Commission and the file was send to the Ministry of Law (Litigation Section, High Court of Delhi) on 24.07.2014. The Ministry of Law, Delhi High Court immediately appointed a Central Govt. Counsel. The file was immediately handed to the Govt. Counsel who sought the necessary document/paper and drafted the Revision Petition and the same was sent through the e-mail to the Division Office, Asansol."
7. The question of delay by the Government Departments in prosecuting the cases has been engaging the attention of the Courts. Recently, in Postmaster General and Ors. V. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. [(2012) 3 SCC 563], the Supreme Court has been pleased to observe as under :
"28. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody, including the Government.
29. In our view, it is right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bona fide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few."
8. The submission on behalf of the Petitioner that the delay in filing the Appeal ought to have been condoned by the State Commission since it had, prima facie, a good case and the same has not been considered on merits by the State Commission, is also stated to be rejected. There is a catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, including in D. Gopinathan Pillai V. State of Kerala & Anr. [(2007) 2 SCC 322], wherein it has been held that inordinate delay in taking recourse to appropriate remedy cannot be condoned on sympathetic grounds.
9. The Petitioner, being a government instrumentality, ought to have acted like a prudent and diligent litigant and its conduct while dealing with pending court matters must show that it was so. However, from the above facts, it is clear that the Petitioner has throughout been negligent in prosecuting its cause. Now, the present Revision Petition, at this belated stage, is yet another attempt to prolong the litigation and to deprive the Complainant from enjoying the fruits of the relief granted by the District Forum. This is nothing but a sheer harassment to the Complainant at the hands of a Government agency, which cannot be permitted.
10. Bearing in mind the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority [(2011) 14 SCC 578] to the effect that while deciding an application for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Act for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the consumer foras are entertained, we are of the view that the State Commission, for the reasons mentioned in the impugned order, was justified in declining to condone the delay in filing the Appeal and consequently dismissing the Appeal on the ground of limitation. We do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order, warranting interference in our revisional jurisdiction.
9. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is dismissed.
......................J D.K. JAIN PRESIDENT ...................... M. SHREESHA MEMBER