1.      The present revision petition is filed against the order dated 28.06.2013 passed by the Gujarat State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as “the State Commission”) in Appeal No. 305/2010/1939. By way of the impugned order, the appeal preferred against the order dated 23.12.2009 passed by the Additional District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Vadodara (hereinafter referred to as “the District Forum”) in Consumer Complaint No. 63/2006 was partly allowed and the order of the District Forum was modified.

2.      Succinctly put, the facts of the case are that in pursuance to the advertisement inviting deposits, issued by the opposite parties in Sandesh Gujarati Newspaper on 03.12.2003, the complainant society deposited an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/-, Rs. 3,00,000/- and Rs.1,50,000/- on 04.03.2004, 16.07.2004 and 10.08.2004, respectively. The said deposits were to be invested as fixed deposits for a period of five years and the rate of interest was 6.50%. The deposits were accepted by the opposite parties, however, vide letter dated 05.08.2005, the complainant was informed that the deposits have been accepted owing to oversight/ mistake as a society was not entitled to invest in this scheme and asked the complainant to withdraw the same. On 22.08.2005, the complainant withdrew the deposits with objections, but the opposite parties did not pay the interest amount on the said deposits. As per the complainant, the total amount of interest at the agreed rate comes to Rs. 84,156. Aggrieved by the acts of the opposite parties, the complainant was constrained to file consumer complaint before the District Forum.

3.      Upon service of notice, the opposite parties contested the claim of the complainant on the ground that the accounts were opened in contravention of the rules and were closed on 24.08.2005. It was contended that as per the statutory rules governing the deposits made with the opposite parties, the complainant had no right to claim interest for deposits made in contravention of the rules. On these grounds, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint. After hearing the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, the District Forum vide order dated 23.12.2009 held as follows:-

“The complaint is partly allowed. The opponents are directed to pay Rs. 84, 156.00 (Rupees eighty four thousand one hundred fifty six only) with 9% interest from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 16.01.2006 till realization. The opponents are further directed to pay Rs. 3,000.00 (rupees three thousand only) for mental agony and inconvenience and another sum of Rs. 1,500.00 (rupees one thousand five hundred only) towards the cost of this proceedings. This award be compiled with within one month from the date of receipt of copy hereof”.

4.      Aggrieved by the above order, opposite party No.1 preferred an appeal before the State Commission. Vide its order dated 28.06.2013, the State Commission partly allowed the appeal and modified the rate of interest to 6% p.a. from 9% p.a. awarded by the District Forum.

5.      Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission petitioner/opposite party No.1 has approached this Commission by way of the present revision petition.

6.   Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

7.      The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the lower fora erred in partly allowing the complaint and awarding interest amount to the respondent No.1. The learned counsel further submitted that since the deposits in the case on hand relate to Post Office Time Deposit Rules, 1981 and Rule 4(6) of these Rules is squarely applicable. The reading of Rule 4(6) makes it clear that if any account is found to have been opened in contravention of any Rule, the relevant Head Savings Bank may, at any time, cause the account to be closed and the deposits made be refunded to the depositor without interest.

8.      To buttress his argument, the learned Counsel placed reliance on a ruling in Arulmighu Dhandayudhapaniswamy Thirukoil, Palani, Tamil Nadu Vs. The Director General of Post Offices, Department of Posts & Ors., Civil Appeal No.4995 of 2006, decided on 13.07.2011, (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court in deciding a case with similar set of facts, dismissed the appeal filed seeking interest on the deposits made in contravention of the rules.

9.      On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 submitted that the present revision petition is barred by limitation as the same has been filed after a long delay of 229 days. It was further submitted that the application for condonation of delay also does not state any sufficient cause that calls for condoning the delay by this Commission.

10.    The learned Counsel stated that after duly appreciating the evidence on record, the District Forum and the State Commission have directed the petitioner to pay the interest amount due towards the deposit accounts.  According to the learned Counsel, since the amounts were accepted by the petitioner, they cannot refuse liability to pay interest on the said deposits.

11.  I have perused the application for condonation of delay in this revision petition.  The main reason for delay has been mentioned in paragraph no.4 of the application, which reads as follows:-

“ 4. That the ld. State Commission had passed the order on 28.06.2013, and certified copy was received in the office of the petitioner on 10.08.2013. Immediately thereafter, the matter was referred for legal opinion over the matter, however, the same was delayed in the office of the counsel and the legal opinion from the counsel was only received on 28.01.2014. The Higher Authority conveyed the view that the matter should be challenged in appeal. Thereafter, the case was referred to the Ministry of Law and Justice for legal opinion on the matter, in which they have opined for the filing of the appeal. Thereafter, the case was sent to the Supdt./Legal for nomination of Government Counsel for filing the Revision Petition before this Hon’ble Commission. In the second week of March, 2014, the present counsel was nominated. The documents were given to the present counsel in the first week of April, 2014 for filing before this Hon’ble Commission. The counsel had prepared the draft in the second week of April, 2014 and sent to the department. Thereafter, the draft was vetted by the department and appeal was filed before this Hon’ble Commission. The above mentioned process had taken much time, as explained above, due to which the accompanying Petition could not be filed within the prescribed period of limitation and some delay had occurred”.

12. From the above narration, it is clear that the reasons for delay are related to procedural delays and delays in inter-departmental communication etc.  These reasons cannot be treated as sufficient causes for condoning the delay in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Postmaster General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Limited & Anr. (2012) 3 SCC 563, where while declining to condone a delay of 427 days in filing Special Leave Petition by the Postal Department, the Supreme Court has observed as under:-

“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 bona fide 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 the government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few”.

13. In Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (2011) 14 SCC 578, while declining to condone a delay of 233 days in filing appeal against an order passed by this Commission, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that while deciding the application filed for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special periods of limitation have been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if the highly belated appeals and revisions are entertained.

14.  Similarly, the Hon’ble Apex Court  in the case of Basawaraj and Anr. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81 has held that:-

“9.     Sufficient cause is the cause for which the 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 viewpoint 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. 

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 lexsedlex 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.  Bearing in mind these broad principles, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has failed to make out sufficient ground for condonation of inordinate delay of 229 days.  Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the Revision Petition also stands dismissed on the ground of limitation.