National Consumer Disputes Redressal
President, Municipal Council & Anr. vs Sudarshan Kumar Sidana & Ors. on 4 September, 2019
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1329 OF 2018 (Against the Order dated 06/02/2018 in Appeal No. 56/2018 of the State Commission Punjab) 1. PRESIDENT, MUNICIPAL COUNCIL & ANR. SRI MUKTSAR SAHIB, DISTRICT-MUKTSAR SAHIB PUNJAB 2. EXECUTIVE OFFICER, MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, DISTRICT-SRI MUKTSAR SAHIB PUNJAB ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. SUDARSHAN KUMAR SIDANA & ORS. S/O. SH. SHAM LAL, R/O. 7381, NIRANKARI COLONY, DISTRICT-SRI MUKTASAR SAHIB PUNJAB 2. GOBIN DABRA S/O. SH. BHAGAT SINGH, R/O. BAZAR DARBAR SAHIB, SRI MUKTSAR SAHIB PUNJAB 3. BALDEV SINGH BEDI S/O. SH. GURCHARAN SINGH BEDI, R/O. 271, STREET NO. 9, GURU ANGAD NAGAR, KOTKPURA RAOD, DISTRICT-MUKTSAR SAHIB PUNJAB 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION, DIVISION NO. 1, SRI MUKTSAR SAHIB PUNJAB 5. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION, DIVISION NO. 2, SRI MUKTSAR SAHIB PUNJAB ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. PREM NARAIN,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : MR. RAJVEER SINGH PARMAR For the Respondent : For Respondent no. 4 Mr Baldev Singh Bedi,
For Respondent no. 3 Mr Sanjeev Rai, W/S/S Div no.1
Sri Muktsar Sahib
For Respondent no.5 Mr Mohit Kumar, W/S/S/ Div 2.
Dated : 04 Sep 2019 ORDER
This revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 06.02.2018 of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh ('the State Commission') in Appeal no. 56 of 2018, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed on the ground of limitation.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainants/ respondents filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum for certain reliefs claimed against the petitioners. The complaint was accepted by the District Forum, however, the petitioner went in appeal before the State Commission and the State Commission remanded the matter back to the District Forum with certain directions. The District Forum then again decided the complaint on those specific points vide its order dated 22.12.2015. The petitioner then preferred an appeal before the State Commission being FA no.56 of 2018 and the State Commission dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay of 70 days.
3. Hence, the present revision petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the delay was caused in taking the approval of the higher authorities and legal opinion on the order passed by the District Forum which was in the form as if passed in public interest litigation. The State Commission has not considered the reasons given in the application for condonation of delay and has dismissed on the ground of limitation and without going into the merits. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the appeal should be decided on merit.
5. On the other hand, respondent nos. 1 to 3 who are appearing in person state that they are consumers under the definition of Consumer as given in Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The District Forum has rightly passed the orders similar to a public interest litigation. The appeal has been filed with a delay and no proper explanation has been given in the application for condonation of delay before the State Commission and therefore, the State Commission has rightly dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation.
6. I have considered the arguments of both the sides and examined the record. Though the application for condonation of delay filed before the State Commission is not on record, however, it is clear from the order of the State Commission that there is a delay of 70 days in filing the appeal before the State Commission and the reasons for the delay have been mentioned as, delay in obtaining the orders from the higher authorities and taking legal opinion. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the case be decided on merit and the matter be remanded to the State Commission to decide the appeal on merit. If the matter is heard by the State Commission on merits, no prejudice will be caused to the parties.
7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manoharan Vs. Sivarajan & Ors, Civil Appeal No.10581 of 2013, decided on 25.11.2013 (SC), held that:
"9. In the case of State of Bihar & Ors. v. Kameshwar Prasad Singh & Anr., it was held that power to condone the delay in approaching the Court has been conferred upon the Courts to enable them to do substantial justice to parties by disposing the cases on merit. The relevant paragraphs of the case read as under:
"11. Power to condone the delay in approaching the Court has been conferred upon the Courts to enable them to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on merits. This Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji (1987)ILLJ 500 SC held that the expression 'sufficient cause' employed by the legislature in the Limitation Act is adequately elastic to enable the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice-that being the life purpose for the existence of the institution of Courts. It was further observed that a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realised that:
1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.
2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.
3. 'Every day's delay must be explained' does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner.
4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.
5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk.
6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so."
8. Similarly, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Esha Bhattacharjee vs. Managing Committee of RaghunathpurNafar Academy and Others., (2013) 12 SCC 649, has laid down:-
"From the aforesaid authorities (case laws referred) the principles that can broadly be culled out are:
21.1. (i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented, non- pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice.
(ii) The terms "sufficient cause" should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact- situation.
(iii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis.
(iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of.
(v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact.
21.6. (vi) It is to be kept in mind that adherence to strict proof should not affect public justice and cause public mischief because the courts are required to be vigilant so that in the ultimate eventuate there is no real failure of justice.
(vii) The concept of liberal approach has to encapsule the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play.
21.8 (viii) There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants strict approach whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation.
21.9 (ix) The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach.
21.10 (x) If the explanation offered is concocted or the grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face such a litigation.
21.11. (xi) It is to be borne in mind that no one gets away with fraud, misrepresentation or interpolation by taking recourse to the technicalities of law of limitation.
21.12. (xii) The entire gamut of facts are to be carefully scrutinized and the approach should be based on the paradigm of judicial discretion which is founded on objective reasoning and not on individual perception.
21.13. (xiii) The State or a public body or an entity representing a collective cause should be given some acceptable latitude.
22. To the aforesaid principles we may add some more guidelines taking note of the present day scenario. They are:
22.1. (a) An application for condonation of delay should be drafted with careful concern and not in a half hazard manner harbouring the notion that the courts are required to condone delay on the bedrock of the principle that adjudication of a lis on merits is seminal to justice dispensation system.
22.2. (b) An application for condonation of delay should not be dealt with in a routine manner on the base of individual philosophy which is basically subjective.
22.3. (c) Though no precise formula can be laid down regard being had to the concept of judicial discretion, yet a conscious effort for achieving consistency and collegiality of the adjudicatory system should be made as that is the ultimate institutional motto.
22.4. (d) The increasing tendency to perceive delay as a non- serious matter and, hence, lackadaisical propensity can be exhibited in a non-challant manner requires to be curbed, of course, within legal parameters."
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in another case N. Balakrishnan Vs. M.Krishnamurthy, (1998) Supp. 1 SCR 403, has laid down the following:-
"11. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. Law of limitation fixes a life-span for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and the wasted time would never revisit. During efflux of time newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So a life span must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. Law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim Interest reipublicae up sit finis Mum (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time.
12. A court knows that refusal to condone delay would result in foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his cause. There is no presumption that delay in approaching the court is always deliberate. This Court has held that the words "sufficient cause" Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide Shakuntala Devi Jain V. KuntalKumari, MANU/SC/0335/1968: [AIR 1969 SCR1006 and State of West Bengal Vs. The Administrator, Howrah Municipality, MANU/SC/0534/1971: [1972]2SCR874a.
13. It must be remembered that in every case of delay there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him. If the explanation does not smack of mala fides or it is not put forth as part of a dilatory strategy the court must show utmost consideration to the suitor. But when there is reasonable ground to think that the delay was occasioned by the party deliberately to gain time then the court should lean against acceptance of the explanation. While condoning delay the Court should not forget the opposite party altogether. It must be borne in mind that he is a looser and he too would have incurred quiet a large litigation expenses. It would be a salutary guideline that when courts condone the delay due to laches on the part of the applicant the court shall compensate the opposite party for his loss."
10. On the basis of the above authoritative judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I deem it appropriate to condone the delay of 70 days in filing the appeal before the State Commission on the grounds mentioned in the application for condonation of delay at a cost of Rs.10,000/- to be given to each of the three complainants separately by way of demand draft in their names before the State Commission. Accordingly, the order of the State Commission dated 06.02.2018 is set aside the matter is remanded to the State Commission for restoring the appeal to its original number and to decide the appeal on merits after hearing both the parties. The State Commission to proceed with the hearing only after the cost of Rs.10,000/- has been paid by the petitioner to all the three complainants.
11. Parties to appear before the State Commission on 16th October 2019.
...................... PREM NARAIN PRESIDING MEMBER