Haryana

StateCommission

A/531/2016

ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND DAIRYING - Complainant(s)

Versus

MEENA - Opp.Party(s)

VISHAL MALIK

28 Sep 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

 

First Appeal No  : 531 of 2016

Date of Institution: 09.06.2016

Date of Decision : 28.09.2017

 

1.      SDO, Animal Husbandry & Dairying, Sonepat.

2.      Veterinary Surgeon, Government Veterinary Hospital, Nahri, District Sonepat.  

                                      Appellants-Opposite Parties No.2 & 3

 Versus

 

1.      Meena wife of Shri Daya Kishan, resident of Village Nahri, Tehsil and District Sonepat.

Respondent No.1-Complainant

 

2.      State of Haryana through Deputy Commissioner, Sonepat.

Respondent No.2-Opposite Party No.1

 

 

CORAM:   Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                   Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

                   Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.

 

 

Argued by: Shri Vishal Malik, Advocate for the appellants.

                   Shri Daya Kishan, authorized representative of respondent No.1-complainant

                   (Service of respondent No.2 dispensed with vide order dated July 27^th, 2017)

         

 

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH, J (ORAL)

 

          By filing the present appeal, SDO, Animal Husbandry & Dairying and Veterinary Surgeon, Sonepat-opposite parties No.2 & 3 (appellants) have challenged the order dated December 18^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat (for short, ‘District Forum’) whereby complaint filed by Smt. Meena-complainant was allowed.  The opposite parties were directed to pay Rs.40,000/- to the complainant on account of death of her cow.

2.      Alongwith the appeal, the appellants filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of 138 days (4 months and 16 days) delay in filing the appeal. The ground taken in paragraph No.2 of the application is as under:-

“2.     That the appellants are aggrieved by the order passed by the learned District Consumer Forum, Sonepat, vide which the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent No.1 has been allowed without appreciating the documents as well as oral evidence in the right perspective.  After acceptance of the complaint, the appellants have decided to file an appeal before this Hon’ble Commission.  However, delay of 144 days has occurred because after passing of the impugned order, same was forwarded by the appellants to the competent authority through proper channel for seeking sanction and approval for filing appeal before this Hon’ble Commission.  During this course of getting approval, procedural delay of 144 days has been occurred.”

3.      Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the delay caused in filing of the appeal is unintentional and it has occurred due to beyond control.

4.      This Commission has considered the submission made on behalf of the appellants. The explanation for the delay caused in filing of the appeal is vague and far from being satisfactory.

5.      By now it is well settled that the delay cannot be condoned on the ground of equity and generosity. While proceeding with the prayer made it has to be kept in mind that expiration of the period of limitation prescribed gives a right to the adversary to treat the order as binding between the parties and this legal right provided by lapse of time should not be disturbed light heartedly.

6.      Hon’ble Supreme Court after exhaustively considering the case law on the aspect  of condonation of delay observed in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation reported in (2010) 5 SCC 459 as under:-

“We have considered   the respective    submissions.  The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The   legislature does not prescribe limitation with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that   they    do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek remedy without delay. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a period fixed by the legislature. To put it differently, the law of limitation prescribes a period within which legal remedy can be availed for redress of the legal injury. At the same   time, the courts are bestowed with the power to condone the delay, if sufficient cause is shown for not availing the remedy within the stipulated time.”       

7.      In Bikram Dass Versus Financial Commissioner and others, AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1221 it has been held as under:-

“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 right must explain every day’s delay.”

 

8.      In State of Nagaland versus Lipokao and others 2005(2) RCR (Criminal) 414 Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that to get any appeal admitted or to get the delay condoned, it is condition precedent to first prove the “sufficient cause” for exercise of discretion by the Court in condoning the delay. Unless and until the sufficient cause is not proved, the delay cannot be condoned.

9.      In view of the above, this Commission has to bear in mind that the object of expeditious disposal of consumer dispute would get defeated if such like applications filed on frivolous grounds are allowed. The law comes to the assistance of the vigilant and not of the sleepy.

10.    Treating the ground taken in the application as sufficient cause for condonation of delay would tantamount to putting premium on the parties own acts of negligence and non challance. So, this Commission does not find it a fit case to condone the delay of 138 days (4 months and 16 days).  Hence, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed.

11.    Coming now to the merits of the case.  As per the Registration Acknowledgment (Exhibit 4) issued by Haryana Livestock Development Board, the cow was registered with the Veterinary Surgeon, Nahri (Sonepat) on May 28^th, 2014.  The Veterinary Surgeon after registering the cow issued the tag and also took the digital photograph (Exhibit C-8) and a certificate was issued that the cow was covered under Mukhya Mantri Gramin Dhudharu Pashudhan Suraksha Yozna (for short, ‘Yozna’).  The cow died on June 02^nd, 2014 within 15 days of the registration. 

12.    Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that as per Condition No.vii of notification dated December 20^th, 2013, in case death occurs within 15 days of registration, that animal would not be covered under the yozna.  Condition No.vii is reproduced as under:-

          “Conditions not covered under the scheme : The Haryana Live Stock Development Board would cater the services of providing mortality risk cover of all the registered milch animals of the farmers (Yielding milk 7.5 Kg. and above per day and age not exceeding 10 years in cattle & 12 years in buffaloes) and all the goats in milk.  The following ailments will not be covered under this scheme:-

1. xxxxxx
2. xxxxxx
3. xxxxxx
4. xxxxxx
5. xxxxxx
6. xxxxxx
7. Death within 15 days of registration (To avoid registration of ailing animals).”

 

13.    He has also relied upon Member Secretary, Gujarat Rural Workers Welfare Board and Another Vs. Bariya Dineshbhai Veljibhai, 2016 (3), CPJ,(NC) 78 wherein it has been held as under:-

                   “In the instant case, admittedly, neither the respective complainants nor the deceased labourers had paid any consideration to the petitioners or the State Government for hiring or availing their services in the form of scheme for financial aid in the event of accidental death. Since the element of consideration is admittedly missing in this case, the respondents are not covered within the definition of ‘consumer’ or the beneficiaries. As the respondents are not the consumers as envisaged under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act, they could not have maintained the consumer complaints. Both the Fora below have entertained the consumer disputes ignoring the fact that the complainants were not the consumers or beneficiaries. Thus, orders of the Fora below are without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained.”

14.    Condition No.vii was imposed under the yozna by the Haryana Live Stock Development Board to avoid registration of ailing animals.  In the said notification, it is specifically mentioned that the concerned Veterinary Surgeon would register, tag and take the digital photograph of the animal.  The Registration Acknowledgment (Exhibit 4) shows that the cow was registered by the Veterinary Surgeon after examining the cow physically and that is why it was held that the cow was covered under the said yozna.  Not only that, he had also taken digital photograph of the cow.  If the cow was suffering from any ailment, registration would have been refused.  The complainant filed claim before the Haryana Live Stock Development Board under the Yozna. The Settlement Committee comprising of Veterinary Surgeon, Incharge, Government Veterinary Hospital, Nahri (Sonepat) and Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat certified that the committee physically visited and verified the death of the animal on June 30^th, 2014 and recommended payment of Rs.40,000/- as claim under the Yozna in favour of the owner vide Claim Settlement Form (Exhibit C-1).  Since the Settlement Committee had recommended the case of the complainant, it was incumbent upon the appellants to make the payment of Rs.40,000/- to her. The authority referred to above is not applicable in the present case because the complainant had paid a fee of Rs.100/- to get her cow registered with the Veterinary Surgeon, Nahri vide Registration Acknowledgment (Exhibit 4) whereas in the cited case the deceased labourers had not paid any consideration.

15.  For the reasons recorded supra, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed on both the grounds, that is, limitation as well as on merits.

16.    The statutory amount of Rs.20,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

 

Announced 28.09.2017

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

 

UK