State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Assistant Executive Engineer, Sub ... vs Girdhari Lal (Since Deceased) Son Of ... on 11 April, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No.703 of 2008 Date of Institution: 07.03.2008 Date of Decision: 11.04.2012 Assistant Executive Engineer, Sub Urban Sub Division No.II, DHBVNL Bhiwani, District Bhiwani. Appellant (OP) Versus Girdhari Lal (since deceased) son of Shri Harnam Dass through his Legal Representative:- 1. Smt. Chhoti Devi widow 2. Ramesh 3. Virender 4. Vijay sons of Girdhari Lal (deceased) All Residents of New Kath Mandi, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani, Consumer of Electricity Connection No.MD3,499AP. Respondents (Complainants) BEFORE: Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Madan, President. Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member. For the Parties: Shri Ravi Kant, Advocate appearing for Shri B.S. Badhran, Advocate for appellant. Respondents exparte. O R D E R
Justice R.S. Madan, President:
This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 14.11.2007 passed by District Consumer Forum, Bhiwani in complaint No.286 of 2002 whereby following directions were issued to the appellant-opposite party:-
we direct the respondents to waive off the penalty imposed upon the complainant on account of theft of energy vide memo No.1607 dated 17.6.2002. We also direct the respondents to refund the amount if any deposited by the complainant towards the penalty in question alongwith interest i.e. 10% p.a. from the date of deposit till the date of final realization. Besides it, the cost of litigation is also allowed to the complainant, which we quantify Rs.1000/-. The order be complied within two months from today. In case of default, the complainant is entitled to get interest i.e. 12% per annum on the above said awarded/calculated amount from the date of default till its final realization.
There is a delay of 63 days in filing of the present appeal the condonation of which has been sought by the appellants by moving an application stating therein that due to lengthy departmental process the delay of 63 days in filing of the appeal has occurred.
In our view the plea taken on behalf of the appellants-opposite parties is not acceptable because it is settled law that the delay cannot be condoned on the ground of equity and generosity and the right which has accrued to the other side for not filing the appeal within the limitation period cannot be thrown away in a casual way unless and until any sufficient cause is not shown by the applicant-appellant. Reference is made to the observation made by the Honble National Commission in Revision Petition No.2430 of 2010, decided on 18.08.2010 titled as HUDA vs. Mr. Krishan Lal Khurana, as under:-
The justification given for delay of 246 days is that HUDA being a Govt. Department, the file had to pass through various Sections and thus, the objections could not be removed in time after filing of the appeal. Such explanation can hardly be considered as sufficient cause for delay of 246 day. In Haryana Urban Development Authority, Haryana, vs. Haryana Petro Chemical Ltd. Rewari, 1 (2010) CPJ 194 (NC), the matter was considered threadbare by a Bench of this Commission, of which I was one of the party. After referring to large number of authorities of the Apex Court it has been observed therein as under:-
Thus, from the above judgments of the Apex Court, it is clear that no short jacket formula can be evolved for dealing with the application for condonation of delay and every case depends upon facts and circumstances of its own. It is now well settled that expression sufficient cause must be liberally construed in order to advance cause of justice. it also must be remembered that after expiry of period of limitation, the opposite party acquires a valuable right and such valuable right cannot be set at naught unless sufficient cause is shown. It is also well settled that length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be uncondonable due to a want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other case, delay of a very along range can be condoned as the explanation thereof is satisfactory. In addition, certain amount of latitude is not impressible where Government is seeking condonation and a little play at the points within reasonable limits is necessary. It does not mean that the Government bodies enjoy long rope and can get away without giving sufficient explanation only on the ground that the delay is sought by Government bodies.
At this stage, we would like to point out that we have noted in many cases of condonation of delay filed by HUDA before the State Commission as also before this Commission that a routine explanation is always being put forward blaming the official delays in handling the matters relating to filing of appeals and revisions. Can such an approach continue indifferently and repeatedly and no attempt should be made to improve the working of the official machinery for all times to come? Can a body that repeatedly comes out with the same state explanation for condoning delay deserves exercise of discretion in its favour?
Keeping in view need to promptly file appeals, the Apex Court in State of Haryana Vs. Chandra Mani & Ors (supra) and State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Ahmed Jaan (Supra) has observed that the Government at appropriate level should constitute legal calls and in the event of decision to file appeal, the officer responsible for filing appeal should take prompt action and he should be made personally responsible for lapses, if any.
The State Commission, therefore, very rightly dismissed appeals on the ground of delay of 246 days.
The instant case is fully covered by the decision rendered by the Honble National Commission in Krishan Lal Khuranas case (Supra). No special concession can be given to the Government Department to condone the delay when no sufficient cause is explained. Hence, the application moved by the appellants for condonation of delay is dismissed.
Even on merits, there is no force in this appeal. It is the case wherein the penalty of Rs.1,05,687/- was imposed upon the complainant for abstracting the electricity energy dishonestly when the premises of the complainant was inspected by the officials of the appellants-Nigam. However, the affidavits of the members of the checking party have not been tendered in evidence. It has also come on the record that the complainant was acquitted for the charges of theft of energy by the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani. Thus, it is a case of no evidence on behalf of the appellant-opposite parties to prove it a case of dishonest abstraction of the electricity energy.
In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Hence, this appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit.
The statutory amount of Rs.500/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal and revision, if any filed in this case.
Announced: Justice R.S. Madan 11.04.2012 President B.M. Bedi Judicial Member