State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dr.Anand Parkash vs Punjab State Electricity Board on 11 January, 2010
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SCO NOS.3009-12, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
Misc. Application No.1431 of 2009
In/and
First Appeal No.1041 of 2009
Date of institution: 23.7.2009
Date of decision : 11.1.2010
Dr.Anand Parkash s/o Sh.Madan Lal resident of B-XIX-1346/2 (Old No.1346),
Haibowal Khurd, Gurdwara Road, Ludhiana.
Present Address
61, Ground Floor, LIG Flats, Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana.
.....Appellant
Versus
Punjab State Electricity Board, Sub Division Haibowal, U-II, Ludhiana through
Executive Engineer.
.....Respondents
First Appeal against the order dated 12.3.2008
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Ludhiana.
Before:-
Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.N.Aggarwal, President
Lt.Col. Darshan Singh (Retd.), Member
Sh.Piare Lal Garg, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh.Munish Goel, Advocate For the respondent : Ms.Ravinder Kaur, Advocate JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT M.A. for condonation of delay This appeal was filed with delay of 422 days.
2. An application has been filed for condonation of delay.
3. It was pleaded in the application that the complaint was filed by the applicant challenging the legality of the demand notice for an amount of Rs.50,110/- issued by the respondents. It was pending in the learned District Forum, Ludhiana in January, 2008 when the applicant started suffering from First Appeal No.1041 of 2009 2 Arthritis and Disc problem. Therefore, he could not contact his counsel. He was under medical treatment from January, 2008 till June, 2009 and he could not move about. He was totally bed ridden due to acute pain. After getting recovered from his illness in June, 2009, the applicant contacted his counsel and came to know that his complaint was already dismissed by the learned District Forum, Ludhiana on the ground that the electric meter was not in the name of the applicant and, therefore, the applicant was not a consumer. Infact, the electric meter was already transferred in the name of the applicant since 2007. Hence, it was prayed that the delay of 422 days in filing the appeal be condoned.
4. This application was supported by an affidavit of the applicant himself. The applicant has also filed the medical certificate given by S.B.S. Memorial Charitable Hospital on 15.6.2009. The present appeal was filed in this Commission on 23.7.2009.
5. Considered
6. The medical certificate given by the applicant is not believeable at all. It has been issued by a private hospital on the letter pad. It is not supported by any record of the hospital.
7. It is simply mentioned in the certificate dated 15.6.2009 that the applicant was suffering from Rheumatoid Arthritis and Post Viral Syndrome. He was advised bed rest from January, 2008 to June, 2009. No record of January, 2008 when the applicant was advised bed rest has been produced nor any record has been produced as to what kind of treatment the applicant was getting from the said hospital.
8. Even if this certificate is believed that the applicant was bed ridden, there was no difficulty for the applicant to contact his counsel on telephone or to depute any of his relatives to contact the counsel and to know about the fate of his case. It is also not explained as to why the applicant could not resort to this remedy. It appears that the applicant has merely concocted a story to wriggle out of abnormal delay caused by him in filing the appeal. First Appeal No.1041 of 2009 3
9. The Hon'ble Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai had rejected the application for condonation of delay of 192 days in the judgement reported as 'ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs.Sindhubhai Khanderao Khairnar II(2008) CPJ 403'.
10. The Hon'ble National Commission had also taken the same view of law in the judgement reported as 'Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Versus Urmila Devi & Ors. II(2008) CPJ 362 (NC)' in which the delay of 443 days in filing the appeal was not condoned. The same view of law was taken by the Hon'ble National Commission in another judgement reported as 'The Links Pvt.Ltd. Versus Shakeel Ahmed III (2008) CPJ 32 (NC)' in which the application for condoning 293 day's delay was rejected by the Hon'ble National Commission.
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had also taken the same view in the judgement reported as 'Delhi Development Authority Versus Krishan Lal 2004 (13) Supreme Court Cases 614' and the delay of 199 days in filing the appeal was not condoned.
12. The Hon'ble National Commission in the judgment reported as "Delhi Development Authority v. R.K.Meena, II (2009) CPJ 191 (N.C.)"
declined to condone the delay of 80 days in filing the appeal.
13. Similarly, the Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Shimla) in the judgment reported as "ICICI Bank v. Sandeep Modgil II (2009) CPJ 292" was pleased to observe that no doubt the approach of the Courts for condoning the delay in filing the appeal cannot be pedantic as the Courts are meant to do substantial justice but at the same time, delay must be explained. However, the vague and general allegations are not sufficient to explain inordinate delay.
14. In the present case the appeal was required to be filed within a period of thirty days from the date of the order but the appeal was filed after 422 First Appeal No.1041 of 2009 4 days after the passing of the impugned order. Delay has not been explained convincingly. Therefore the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Main Case:
15. Since the application for condonation of delay is dismissed, the appeal also stands dismissed as barred by limitation.
(JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL) PRESIDENT (LT. COL. DARSHAN SINGH-RETD.) MEMBER (PIARE LAL GARG) MEMBER January 11, 2010.
Paritosh