State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Senior Post Master vs Bal Krishna on 9 February, 2011
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI
IN
THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI
(Constituted under Section
9 of the Consumer Proyection Act, 1986)
Date of Decision : 9.2.2011
First Appeal
2010/579
(Arising out of the order dated 1.4.2010 passed by
the
District Forum(Central), Kashmere Gate, Delhii in
complaint case no 373/2008)
The Senior Post Master
Indraprashta Head Post
Office,
I P Estate,
New
Delhi -110
002
.........Appellant
through Shri Ravinder Nischal, advocate
VS
1. Shri Bal
Krishna,
R/o
WZ-1427, Nangal Raya,
New Delhi 110 046
2. Mrs.
Anita Aggarwal, SAS Agent,
through Sr. Post Master,
I P Estate,
New Delhi -110 002
..Respondent
through Sh. S.B. Lal Saxena,
advocate
CORAM
Justice
Barkat Ali Zaidi, President
Salma
Noor, Member
Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
JUSTICE BARKAT ALI ZAIDI, PRESIDENT
1. The appellant Senior Post Master, has filed an appeal against an award passed by the District Consumer Forum, along with which he has also filed an application for condonation of delay. There is a 15 days delay in filing of the appeal.
2. We have heard Shri Arun Nischal Counsel for the Appellant and Shri S.B. Lal Saxena, Counsel for respondent No.1.
3. The reason for condonation of delay given in the application is:-
that on receipt of the certified copy of the order on 7.6.2010, the appellants, being the nodal office, on 14.6.2010 referred the matter to Post Master General for advice who on 23.6.2010 asked for the litigation cell opinion and the cell on 28.6.2010 returned the file with an advice to file the appeal. The Chief Post Master therefore on 2.6.2010 (Counsel says that the correct should be 2.7.2010) sent the matter to the appellants and the appellants on 7.6.2010 (Counsel says that the correct should be 7.7.2010) asked the Government Counsel to prepare the appeal, the Counsel on 12.7.2010 drafted the appeal along with application for condonation of delay and the appeal is filed on 23.7.2010.
4. The explanation offered by the appellant is manifestly insufficient. If such puerile explanations are accepted every delay will have to be condoned. For the purpose of condonation of delay there must be some legitimate justified reasons. The appellant provides a classic example of how matters proceed at a snails pace in government departments, but that does not, in any case, provides any reasonable or legitimate ground for condonation of delay. Time and tide wait for no man and in the transfer of file from one table to another the time for filing the appeal expired.
5. Counsel for the appellant submitted that a liberal view should be taken in the matter of limitations pertaining to Government Departments. Even for taking a liberal view there has to be any proper and justified reason. In the absence of any such reason, the question of taking liberal view will hardly arise.
6. The Application for condonation of delay is rejected.
(Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi) President (Salma Noor) Member Arya