Haryana

StateCommission

A/137/2019

DHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

JAI ROHATGI - Opp.Party(s)

ALKA JOSHI

20 Mar 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                               

                                                         First Appeal No.137 of 2019

                                                Date of Institution: 11.02.2019

Date of order: 20.03.2023

 

Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Sector 18, Maruti Area, Gurgaon, (HR) through its Sub-Divisional Officer, G-24.

…..Appellant

Versus

Jai Rohatgi son of Shri J.P. Rohtagi, resident of House No. 630, Sector 17, Housing Board Colony, Gurgaon (HR).

…..Respondent

CORAM:    S.P.Sood, Judicial  Member

                   Suresh Chander Kaushik, Member.

 

Present:-    Ms. Alka Joshi, Advocate for theappellant.

                   None for the respondent.

 

                                                ORDER

S P SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

The present appeal No.137 of 2019 has been filed against the order dated 22.03.2018 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (In short Now “District Commission”) in complaint case No.676 of 2015, which was allowed.

2.      There is a delay of 283 days in filing the present appeal. Appellant has filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act (in short “Act”) for condonation of delay of 283 days wherein, it is alleged that sanction has to be taken from various authorities to file the appeal which consumes time. Since it is departmental case and in this process the file has to go through various channels. Therefore the delay in filing of appeal was not deliberate or intentional but due to reasons mentioned above. Thus, delay of 283 days in filing of the present appeal may please be condoned.

3.      Arguments Heard. File perused.

4.      Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that as per facts mentioned above, it is clear that delay in filing appeal was not at all intentional. Learned counsel further argued that since it is a departmental matter and sanction has to be taken from various authorities to file the appeal.Thus there was no delay in filing the present appeal and the same if any may be condoned. 

5.      This argument of appellant can notbe considered because in the application for condonation of delay the appellant has not given any date precisely when the certified copy was received and when the file was referred forapproval from the authority and when the same has granted it for filing an appeal and thereafter when the counsel was engaged. All these details were deliberately concealed by the appellant from this Commission. There was no justification in waiting for 283 days in filing the present appeal.  A period of 30 days as per the old Act has been provided for filing an appeal against the order of the District Commission. The proviso therein permits the State Commission to entertain an appeal after the expiry of the period of 30 days if it is satisfied that there is “Sufficient cause” for not filing the appeal within the prescribed period. The expression of sufficient cause has not been defined in the Act rightly so, because it would vary from facts and circumstances of each case.

6.      The inordinate delay of 283 days cannot be condoned in the light of the following judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Chief Post Master General &Ors Versus Living Media India Ltd. &Anr. 2021 (3) SCC 563 it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court:-

“12. 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.  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.

13.    In our view, it is the right time to inform all the Government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities and 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 Government departments.  The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few.  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.  Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay.

14. In view of our conclusion on issue (a), there is no need to go into the merits of the issues (b) and (c ).  The question of law raised is left open to be decided in an appropriate case. In the light of the above discussion, the appeals fail and are dismissed on the ground of delay. No order as to costs.

Appeal dismissed.”

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others, AIR, 1977 Supreme Court 1221 has held that;

“Section 5 of the Limitation Act is a hard task-master and judicial interpretation has encased it within a narrow compass. A large measure of case-law has grown around S.5, its highlights being that one ought not easily to take away a right which has accrued to a party by lapse of time and that therefore a litigant who is not vigilant about his rights must explain every days delay.”

          The Hon’ble National Commission in case Government of U.T. Electricity Department & Others versus Ram Lubhai, II(2006) CPJ 104 has held that:-

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 15 –Appeal –Maintainability – Limitation –Condonation of delay– Resjudicata –Appeal filed after a delay of 44 days –Plea of procedural delay in getting approval for filing appeal – Appeal filed by complainant against order of District Forum decided and copy of order dispatched to parties prior to filing of appeal by opposite party –Appeal and application for condonation of delay dismissed –Matter once finally concluded by any Court cannot be reopened by same Court.”

          In R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari 2009 (2) Scale 108, it has   been observed:

         “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.”

      In Ram Lal and Ors.  Vs.  RewaCoalfields  Ltd., AIR  1962 Supreme Court 361, it has been observed;

“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.”

         

7.      Taking into consideration the pleas raised by appellant in the application for condonation of delay and settled principle of law, this Commission does not find it a fit case to condone delay of 283 days in filing of the appeal. The department-appellant has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay.  Hence, the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is dismissed on the ground of delay.

8.      It is admitted that complainant/respondent is having electricity connection from appellant department. Appellant issued bill dated 05.11.2014 for Rs.83,399/- on account of default in electric meter. Appellant was asked to submit the report of defective meter or to submit the report as to when the meter was removed but appellant failed to place on record any report of Lab regarding the meter being defective or any other evidence to show that the demand pertained to actual consumption of electric energy by the respondent. Learned District Commission has rightly directed appellant/Op to claim only the electricity charges out of the disputed bill dated 05.11.2014 on the basis of average of 12 months w.e.f. 06/2016 onwards and then to raise the bill on the basis of average consumption of the electric consumption and on payment of said bill amount to restore the electricity connection of the complainant. Well this was purely in fairness to both of the parties.  Thus, learned District Commission rightly allowed the claim of the complainant. The learned District Commission had committed no illegality while passing the order dated 22.03.2018. The appeal is also devoid of merits and stands dismissed.

9.      The statutory amount of Rs.1,050/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

10.       Applications pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.

11.       A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.

12.      File be consigned to record room.

 

Date of order: 20^thMarch, 2023

 

 

 

 

                        (Suresh ChanderKaushik)                       (S. P. Sood)                                                  Member                                                            Judicial Member                

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)