National Consumer Disputes Redressal
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Krishna Prasad Verma & 2 Ors. on 15 May, 2019
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2553 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 06/12/2016 in Appeal No. 172/2014 of the State Commission Bihar) 1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. KRISHNA PRASAD VERMA & 2 ORS. ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA,PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. C. VISWANATH,MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Pradeep Gauar, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. B.S. Rajesh Agrajit, Advocate Dated : 15 May 2019 ORDER IA/13164/2017 This application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 148 days in filing the present revision petition. It is submitted that the impugned order was passed on 6.12.2012 and the certified copy of the said order was received by the petitioner and thereafter the concerned regional office prepared the note and forwarded the same to the head office. The head office after taking the decision in the matter opined that the revision petition be filed and forwarded the file to the counsel. Thereafter, the counsel prepared the revision petition. Some delay has also occurred in getting the translated copies and that is why the revision petition could not be filed within limitation.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent states that no sufficient reason for condoning the delay has been given in the application. It is submitted that the application is silent of the fact as to when the copy of the impugned order was received by the petitioner and on which date the matter was forwarded to the head office and on which date the head office gave its opinion for filing the revision petition. It is argued that even it is not mentioned in the application as to on which date file was forwarded to the counsel for filing the revision petition. No sufficient ground has been disclosed in the application for condoning the delay. It is settled law that it is the applicant who has to set out sufficient reasons for not being coming to this Commission within the stipulated period of limitation. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ram Lal and Ors. vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361 has held as under: -
"It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by S.5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the enquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant."
3. The burden is therefore upon the applicant to show sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in " Basavraj & Anr. V. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, 2013 AIR SCW 6510" has explained the meaning of sufficient cause which is as under:
" Sufficient cause is the cause for which defendant could not be blamed for his absence. The meaning of the word "sufficient" is "adequate" or "enough", inasmuch as may be necessary to answer the purpose intended. Therefore, the word "sufficient" embraces no more than that which provides a platitude, which when the act done suffices to accomplish the purpose intended in the facts and circumstances existing in a case, duly examined from the view point of a reasonable standard of a cautious man. In this context, "sufficient cause" means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part in view of the facts and circumstances of a case or it cannot be alleged that the party has "not acted diligently" or "remained inactive". However, the facts and circumstances of each case must afford sufficient ground to enable the Court concerned to exercise discretion for the reason that whenever the Court exercises discretion, it has to be exercised judiciously. The applicant must satisfy the Court that he was prevented by any "sufficient cause" from prosecuting his case, and unless a satisfactory explanation is furnished, the Court should not allow the application for condonation of delay. The court has to examine whether the mistake is bona fide or was merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose. (See: Manindra Land and Building Corporation Ltd. v. Bhootnath Banerjee & Ors., AIR 1964 SC 1336; Lala Matadin v. A. Narayanan, AIR 1970 SC 1953; Parimal v.Veena @ Bharti AIR 2011 SC 1150; and Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai AIR 2012 SC 1629: (2012 AIR SCW 2412)
12. It is a settled legal proposition that law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The Court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. " A result flowing from a statutory provision is never an evil. A Court has no power to ignore that provision to relieve what it considers a distress resulting from its operation." The statutory provision may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the Court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same. The legal maxim "dura lex sed lex" which means "the law is hard but it is the law", stands attracted in such a situation. It has consistently been held that, "inconvenience is not" a decisive factor to be considered while interpreting a statute.
15. The law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the "sufficient cause" which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bonafide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this court in regard to the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislature."
(Emphasis supplied)
4. Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held in the case of Ram Lal and Ors. vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361 that condonation of delay is not a matter of right and it the applicant who has to explain sufficient cause which prevented him from coming to the Court within the prescribed period of limitation. The basic test to be applied is that the parties should be able to show that they have acted with reasonable diligence. In the case of R. B. Ramlingam vs. R. B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC). Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition."
5. Further in the case of Anshul Aggarwal, Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held that while dealing with such application for condonation delay, this Commission has to keep in mind the nature of the period of limitation provided therein while dealing with the application for condonation of delay. Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: -
"It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the consumer foras."
6. It is not disputed that the petitioner is a government department. In the case of Post Master General, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: -
7. Recently, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Post Master General and others vs. Living Media India Ltd. and another (2012) 3 Supreme Court Cases 563 has held that Government departments should not be given any special privilege and they should be treated like a common person. Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"24. After referring various earlier decisions, taking very lenient view in condoning the delay, particularly, on the part of the Government and Government Undertaking, this Court observed as under;
"29. It needs no restatement at our hands that the object for fixing time-limit for litigation is based on public policy fixing a lifespan for legal remedy for the purpose of general welfare. They are meant to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but avail their legal remedies promptly. Salmond in his Jurisprudence states that the laws come to the assistance of the vigilant and not of the sleepy.
30. Public interest undoubtedly is a paramount consideration in exercising the courts' discretion wherever conferred upon it by the relevant statutes. Pursuing stale claims and multiplicity of proceedings in no manner subserves public interest. Prompt and timely payment of compensation to the landlosers facilitating their rehabilitation /resettlement is equally an integral part of public policy. Public interest demands that the State or the beneficiary of acquisition, as the case may be, should not be allowed to indulge in any act to unsettle the settled legal rights accrued in law by resorting to avoidable litigation unless the claimants are guilty of deriving benefit to which they are otherwise not entitled, in any fraudulent manner. One should not forget the basic fact that what is acquired is not the land but the livelihood of the landlosers. These public interest parameters ought to be kept in mind by the courts while exercising the discretion dealing with the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Dragging the landlosers to courts of law years after the termination of legal proceedings would not serve any public interest. Settled rights cannot be lightly interfered with by condoning inordinate delay without there being any proper explanation of such delay on the ground of involvement of public revenue. It serves no public interest."
The Court further observed:
"27. It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us.
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 bonafide, 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 the 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 bonafide 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 government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few.
30. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay.
31. In view of our conclusion on Issue (a), there is no need to go into the merits of Issues (b) and (c). The question of law raised is left open to be decided in an appropriate case.
32. In the light of the above discussion, the appeals fail and are dismissed on the ground of delay. No order as to costs."
8. From the above discussion, it is apparent that the burden is upon the complainant to show sufficient cause. From perusal of the application it is apparent that the application has been prepared casually and events and dates have not been given on which date certain acts have been done. The period of delay and the reason for delay in the various departments of the petitioner i.e. the regional office and head office and their counsel has not been disclosed in the application. We found no reason to condone the delay. Accordingly, application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the revision petition also stands dismissed.
......................J DEEPA SHARMA PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... C. VISWANATH MEMBER