Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/600/2017

Telecom District Manager B.S.N.L. Swai Madhopur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Arun Sharma s/o Late Satyanarain Sharma - Opp.Party(s)

N.S.Yadav

16 Aug 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 600/2017

 

Telecom District Manager, BSNL Sawaimadhopur.

Vs.

Arun Sharma s/o Late Sh.Satyanarain Sharma c/o Sidhi Vinayak Store, Gorav Path, Station Bajaria, Sawaimadhopur & ors.

 

Date of Order 16.8.2017

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

 

Mr. Narendra Singh Yadav counsel for the appellant

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

This appeal has been filed against the order passed by the District Forum, Sawaimadhopur dated 15.2.2017 whereby the claim has been allowed against the appellant. The matter has

2

 

come upon the application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act as the appeal has been filed with delay of 68 days.

 

The contention of the appellant in the application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act is as under:

 

“ That after service of copy of impugned order appellant Bharat Sanchar Nigam which is a government of India control company and a big established so it took a more time to take decision to file appeal so after decision of this effect this appeal is being filed without any further delay.”

 

The above reason cannot be said to be a reasonable or sufficient cause to condone the delay as in 2009 (2) SCALE 108 R.B.Ramlingam Vs. R.B.Bhavaneshwari the 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.”

 

3

 

In the light of above pronouncement in the present matter the delay has not been explained. Nothing has been shown in the application about the name or other details of the concerned officer and further more in IV (2016) CPJ 178 (NC) Reliance General Insurance Co. Vs. Shri Pariyojna Nirman Pvt.Ltd. the National Commission has held as under:

 

“It is thus clear that the petitioner has made lame excuses. In view of the latest law prevailing in this country the petitioner should have been vigilant and prompt. Decisions of the higher authorities should have been sought in a jiffy. The expression 'sufficient cause' cannot be erased from section 5 of the Limitation Act by adopting the excessive liberal approach which would defeat the purpose of sec. 5 of the Limitation Act and C.P.Act. There must be some cause which can be termed as a 'sufficient one' for the purpose of delay condonation. The officers of the insurance company should not sit over the documents they should decide the case immediately. For such a huge delay petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay.”

 

In the present application even it has not been stated that when the decision to file the appeal was taken and it seems that the application has been filed in a very casual and vague

 

4

 

manner and in view of the above the application deserves to be dismissed.

 

Merit has also been considered.

 

The contention of the appellant was that services were availed for commercial purpose but contention of the consumer was that he availed the services for earn his livelihood by means of self employment and this fact could not be rebutted by the appellant and objection has rightly been dismissed by the Forum below.

 

Further it was the fact of the case that cable was lay down and connections were also issued to other persons and contention of the complainant is that one connection is lying vacant on the same line and to controvert this contention no technical report has been submitted and looking at the facts of the case the claim has rightly been allowed by the Forum below.

 

In view of the above, there is no merit in this appeal and when special limitation is provided under the Act the delay of

 

5

 

68 days is also fatal and appeal is liable to be rejected on this ground alone.

(Nisha Gupta) President

nm