State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Meenu Jain on 6 February, 2012
CASE NO IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 clause (b)of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ) Date of Decision: 06.02-2012 Case No. FA-10/738 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI Through its Commissioner Town Hall, Chandani Chowk Delhi. - Appellant Versus MRS. MEENU JAIN - Respondent R/o C-7, first Floor. Arya Samaj Road, Adrash Nagar, Delhi - 110033. CORAM : JUSTICE BARKAT ALI ZAIDI - President SALMA NOOR - Member Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment? To be referred to the Reporter or not? SALMA NOOR (ORAL) ORDER
1. The appellant/OP has came in the appeal against order dated: 29.3.2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum North, Room No. 2 & 3, Old civil Supply Building, Tis Hazari, Delhi in complaint Case No. 333/2008.
2. The appeal since was filed after the prescribed limitation, therefore, it accompanied on application u/s 15 of the CP Act requesting for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
3. On receipt of notice of the appeal the respondent/complainant appeared and filed his objection to the delay condonation application as well as reply to the appeal on merits.
4. We have heard Sh. Amit Batra, Counsel for the appellant and Dr. P.K. Jain, Husband and AR for the respondent.
5. Before going into the merits of the case, it is necessary to dispose off the application of the appellant for condonation of delay.
6. In the application for condonation of delay, it is stated on behalf of the applicant that copy of the impugned order dated 29.3.2010 was received by the concerned Municipal Corporation of Delhi on 2.7.2010 and thereafter the permission was sought from the law department for filing the appeal before the State Commission and Ms. Suparna Srivastava was appointed as a Counsel in this matter, who after going through the contents of impugned order refused to accept the brief. Then the law department engaged Mr. Naveen Grover, Advocate to file the appeal who thereafter took some time to file the appeal. The further contention of the appellant is that as the MCD is a Govt. body, it takes some time for taking approval from the higher authority, that is why it was beyond the control of the appellant to file present appeal in time
7. The delay in filing the appeal is accordingly prayed to be condoned in the interest of justice.
8. In reply to this application, the respondent has submitted that the appellant has received the copy of the order in April 2010 and not in July as claimed by the appellant. He further submitted that he also sent a copy of the order to the appellant on 27.6.2010 and the same might have been received by the appellant as the official address of the MCD is correct as it was given in the advertisement in print media.
9. As per section 15 of the CP Act an appeal by aggrieved party may be preferred against impugned order before the State Commission within a period of 30 days from the date of order. Proviso 2 section 15 of the CP Act provides that the State Commission may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of 30 days, if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within that period.
10. The word sufficient cause though deserve to receive a liberal interpretation, yet a just and equitable balance has to be maintained between the right accrued to the respondent as a result of expiry of prescribed period of limitation and injustice in depriving the adjudication of appellants grievances on merits of their appeal for causes beyond their reasonable control. This implies that the cause must be bonafide and beyond the control of the appellant. No hard and fast line can be drawn to ascertain as to what is sufficient cause in a given case. However, as per settled law any cause could prevent the person from approaching the court within time. Sufficient cause has to pass the test of a reasonable man in normal circumstances. Reference may be made to Pradeep Kumar Vs. Finance officer DVB 2001 (CPR)-09.
11. In the present case the reasons assigned in filing the appeal after the expiry of limitation is that after the receipt of the impugned order, the department referred the matter to their counsel who refused to accept the brief and then another counsel was appointed who filed the appeal late because of some departmental and legal formalities, which was beyond the control of the MCD and hence delay was not deliberate.
12. The law under the Consumer protection Act 1986 prescribes the period of limitation of 30 days in preferring the appeal and it is admitted by the appellants themselves that the order was received by them on 2.7.2010 while the appeal in this case have filed on 25.9.2010 i.e. after 55 days of the admitted receipt of the order which was passed on 29.3.2010. The explanation offered, therefore, does not explain such along delay satisfactorily by showing sufficient cause as envisaged by proviso 2 of Section 15 of the CP Act.
13. The Honble Supreme Court in its judgment reported as State Bank of India Vs. B.S. Agricultural Industries (I), II (2009) C.P.J.. 29 (SC)-II (2009) SLT793-2009 CTJ 481(Supreme Court) (CP) considered the provisions of limitation as contained in section 24 A of the Consumer protection Act, 1986. Although the question before the Honble Supreme Court was only the delay in filing the complaint in the first instance beyond the period of two years as laid down in the statutory provisions yet observations made in this case deal with elaborate by the law of limitation and are relevant for our purpose in this case. Their Lordships have observed as under:
It would be seen from the aforesaid provision that it is peremptory in nature and requires consumer forum to see before it admits the complaint that it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. The consumer forum, however, for the reasons to be recorded in writing may condone the delay in filing the complaint if sufficient cause is shown. The expression, shall not admit a complaint occurring in Section 24 A is sort of legislative command to the consumer forum to examine on its own whether the complaint has been filed within limitation period prescribed there under. As a matter of law, the consumer forum must deal with the complaint on merits only if the complaint has been filed within two years from the date of accrual cause of action and if beyond the said period, the sufficient cause has been shown and delay condoned for the reasons recorded in writing. In other words, it is the duty of the consumer forum to take notice of Section 24 A and give affect to it. If the complaint on merits, the forum would be committing on illegality and, therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside.
14.
The law of the Supreme Court and followed by the National Commission in this regard is well settled. Reference can be made to few of such cases cited below:
i) Delhi Development Authority Vs. Gurinder kaur Kohli III 2010 CPJ 248 (NC)
ii) HUDA Vs. Krishna Devi III 2010 CPJ 202 (NC)
iii) HUDA Vs Randhir Singh III 2010 CPJ 202 (NC)
iv) Narayana IIT Academy Vs. R.K. Sharma III 2010 191-(DSCDRC)
15.
In these facts and circumstances of the case, we see no just and sufficient cause shown to our satisfaction for condoning the delay. Hence the request for condoning the delay is turned down and the application for the purpose moved by the appellant is rejected.
16. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed in limine.
17. Bank Guarantee/FDR, if any, be returned to the appellant after completion of due formalities.
18. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.
19. Announced on February 6, 2012.
(JUSTICE BARKAT ALI ZAIDI) PRESIDENT (SALMA NOOR) MEMBER rn