Karnataka

StateCommission

A/152/2014

The Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mohan S/o. Ganapathi Kumtakar - Opp.Party(s)

Nandita Haldipur

24 Jul 2023

ORDER

Date of Filing : 07.02.2014

                                                                                                                                                                            Date of Disposal : 24.07.2023

 

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)

 

DATED: 24.07.2023

 

PRESENT

 

HON’BLE Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

APPEAL Nos.152/2014 to 161/2014

 

                                      

The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner,
Employees Provident Fund Organisation,

Sub Regional Office,

Bhavishya Nidi Bhavan,

New Block No.10,

Behind Income Tax Office,

Navanagar, Hubli – 580 025.                                             Appellant

(By Mrs Nandita Haldipur, Advocate)

(Appellant is same in all the Appeals)

 

 

             - Versus-

1.Appeal No.152/2014

   Mr Mohan

   S/o Mr Ganapathi Kumtakar
   R/o : Keni,Tq. Ankola,

   Dist : North Kanara
   (By Mr Nadgir R R, Advocate)                                    Respondents

                                               

2.Appeal No.153/2014

   Mr Zafrulla
   S/o Mr  Abdulla Khan

   Aged 60 years

   R/o : Kasturba Nagar

   Sirsi, Dist : North Kanara                                          Respondents                                    

 

3.Appeal No.154/2014

Mr Ananth
S/o Mr  Subramanya Bhat

Aged 66 years

R/o : Siragungi,

P.O. Uppinapatra,

Tq : Kumta,

Dist : North Kanara                                                    Respondents  

 

4.Appeal No.155/2014

Mr Shridhar
S/o Mr Hanumanth Naik

R/o : Neelekani,

Sirsi, Dist : North Kanara                                           Respondents   

 

5.Appeal No.156/2014

Mr Datta
S/o Mr Bangari Netrekar

   Aged 72 years

R/o No. 220, Nehru Nagar,

Hubli Road, Sirsi,

Dist : North Kanara                                                   Respondents  

 

6.Appeal No.157/2014

Mr Shankar
S/o Mr Subbaraya Pawaskar

   Aged 60 years

R/o Mule Oni,

Kotegalli,

Near Old Bus Stand,

Sirsi, Dist : North Kanara                                           Respondents

 

7.Appeal No.158/2014

Mrs Juliana
W/o Cyril Fernandis

    Aged 62 years

R/o Vijaynagar,

1^stCross, Aditya,

Rajarapete, Sirsi,

Dist : North Kanara                                                    Respondents 

 

8.Appeal No.159/2014

Mr Prabhakar
S/o Mr Devaru Bhat

   Aged 60 years

R/o Shri Daya,

Navilgaon,

Tq : Honnavar,

Dist : North Kanara                                                    Respondents 

 

9.Appeal No.160/2014

Mr Subraya
S/o Mr Ishwar Bhat

R/o No.1/28,

Handigone,

Tq : Kumta,

Dist : North Kanara                                                    Respondents

 

 

10.Appeal No.161/2014

Mr Gurusiddappa
S/o Mr Huchappa Jangannavar,

Aged : 62 years,

R/o : H No19, Shanti Nivas,

Subhash Nagar,

Devargudihal,

Old Hubli, Dist : Dharwad                                          Respondents  

                               

: COMMON ORDER :

 

Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

01.     These 10 Appeals are filed under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, by OP1, aggrieved by the Common Order dated 13.01.2012 passed in Consumer Complaint Nos.364, 362, 363, 365, 366, 367, 369, 368, 370 & 371/2011 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dharwad (for short, the District Forum). Since the facts and law involved in all these cases are one & the same, they have been taken up together for consideration.

 

02.     This Commission heard the arguments of the Learned Counsels for Appellant in all the Appeals and Respondent in Appeal No.152/2014.  Inspite of service of Notice from this Commission on the Respondents in Appeal Nos.153 to 158, 160 & 161/2014, since none appeared, their arguments in all these Appeals are taken as heard. 

In Appeal No.159/2014, the Notice on the Respondent has been returned un-delivered with postal shara as ‘Dead’ and no step has been taken by the Appellant for re-issue of Notice or for getting the LRs of the deceased member on record. The Appellant is hereby directed to take further needful step in this matter, delinking this case number from this bunch of case number without any further loss of time taking the vintage of the case as a priority.

03.     The Counsel for the Appellant has also filed an Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in all these Appeals, seeking to condone the delay in preferring these Appeals.

04.     In the Affidavit filed in support of the said Application, amongst other contentions, contended that the Order passed by the District Forum is dated 13.01.2012.  The Forum has passed a common order in 12 Complaints. The Appellant had furnished the necessary papers to their panel Advocate in Dharwad for challenging the Order before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka.  But the Advocate filed only two Writ Petitions challenging the order passed in Complaint Nos. 360 & 361/2012 and the Appellant was not intimated about the non-filing of the Writ Petition in the other 10 matters.  The two Writ Petitions filed being WP No.66329/2012 & 72147/2012 in Consumer Complaint Nos, 360/2012 & 361/2012, which were Dismissed vide Order dated 13.02.2013 & 12.08.2013, directing the Appellant to approach this Commission. That after receipt of the Order copy, the Appellant has filed Appeals before this Commission, in which Notice has been issued.  The Appellant has contended that after repeated request to  Advocate to furnish the WP Numbers, the Advocate vide letter dated 26.11.2013 informed that Writ Petitions have not been filed in Complaint Nos. 362 to 371/2011.  Thereafter, the Appellant has again applied for another set of Certified Copies of the common order passed in the connected complaints. The certified copy was furnished on 29.11.2013.  Thereafter took necessary steps for filing the Appeals, hence, there is a delay in filing the Appeals. Thus, seeks to allow the Application by condoning the delay in preferring the Appeals, as the Appellant has good case on merits.

05.     On perusal of the respective Order Sheets, it is seen that the Office had pointed out that there is a delay of 690 days in preferring the Appeals.

06.     At the time of filing of the application for condonation of delay, it is for the Appellant to explain as to what prevented him from not filing the Appeal vis-à-vis applying for getting certified copies of the Orders of the District Forum in time. Further, when the Rules laid under CP Act 1986, is an enactment in itself, has abundantly made it clear regarding the appeal provision.

07.     The delay of 690 days in preferring these respective appeals is an enormous one. The reasons assigned in the Affidavit filed in support of the Delay Condonation Application are purely routine administrative in nature. The  explanation  offered  by  the  Appellant  in  support  of  their  Applications  for  condonation  of   delay  is  highly  vague  and  general in nature,  which cannot be recorded as sufficient cause to justify condonation of delay

 

08.      One of the objectives behind the enactment of the CP Act 1986 is to provide speedy relief to a consumer aggrieved on account of deficiency in service on the part of the service provider and the Act enjoins upon the Consumer Forum to make effort to dispose of the Complaints within a period of 90 days.  The said purpose would only be defeated if the application for condonation of delay is admitted.

 

09.     Further, this Commission observed that the reference made by the Appellant regarding the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in dismissing the Writ Petition Nos.66329/2012 & 72147/2012 on 13.02.2013 & 12.08.2013 in Complaint Nos.360/2012 & 361/2012 has not been preferred in these set of Appeals, hence, the Appellant referring about these 2 Writ Petitions here besides being irrelevant & redundant.

10.     Further, in a catena of its decisions, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held, viz., ‘sufficient cause’ cannot be construed liberally if negligence, in-action or lack of bonafides are attributable to the party, praying for exercise of such discretions in its favour and that when a statute provides for a particular period of limitation, it has to be applied with all its rigors, as an unlimited limitation ‘leads to a sense of uncertainty’. 

11.     In the decision of Hon’ble National commission in RP 3368/2017 in the case of Parsvanth  Developers  Ltd., Vs  Sunehri Devi decided on  09.02.2018 reported in CPR 2018(2) 101(NC), held that “Sufficient cause cannot be construed liberally if negligence, inaction or lack of  bonafides  are  attributable  to  the  party”.

         

12.     The decisions of Hon’ble  National  Commission  in  First Appeal  No  1530/2018 Vijaya Bank Vs Rabhin Malakar decided on 10.09.2018 reported in CPR 2018(3) 876 (NC) in Para 3 held that –

Para 3. … It is a settled proposition of law that delay of each and every day has to be explained.  There has to be reasonable and cogent reasons which prevented the applicant to file the appeal or revision within the prescribed period of limitation.  Where the delay is un-explained or not convincing and no sufficient cause is shown, the Courts are justified in rejecting the applications for condonation of delay. The party is expected to act in a diligent and bonafide manner and where they act sluggishly or show laziness or adopt casual manner in dealing with their matters and cause undue delay, in this situation it can never be said that delay has been properly explained or that there is sufficient ground for condoning the delay.  My view finds support from the findings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of “Ram Lal and Ors Vs Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR  1962 Supreme Court 361”, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the matter of condonation of delay has observed as under –

 

“It is, however, necessary to emphasise 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 … If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation has  to be dismissed on that ground alone

13.     Further in view of decisions rendered by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission reported in 2018 (2) CPR 507 (NC) the matter between M/s TDI Infrastructure Ltd., Vs Kulvinder Singh Bahl and also in 2019 (1) CPR 5 (NC) in the case of Care Hospital, Nagpur Vs Naresh Gopalakrishna Vyas & others, it is held that the Appeal can be dismissed on the point of delay in filing of the Application alone.

14.     Time and again it is held that administrative delay and administrative lapses cannot be termed as sufficient reasons for not preferring the Appeals in time.  For these reasons, we are of considered opinion that the Appellant has not at all explained in any acceptable terms, the reasons for delay caused in filing the present Appeals.  Hence the delay in filing the Application for Condonation of delay is fatal to the Appeals

15.     Notwithstanding the foregoing observations, this Commission is of the considered view that the Impugned Order passed by the District Forum is just and proper and the same does not call for any interference. Accordingly, all the 10 Appeals, carrying Nos.152/2014 to 161/2014 (excluding Appeal No.159/2014) stands Dismissed.

16.     The statutory deposit in all these Appeals is directed to be transferred to the District Commission for further needful.

17.     Keep the Original of this Order in Appeal No.152/2014 and copy thereof, in rest of the Appeals.

 

18.     Send a copy of this Order to the District Commission as well as to the parties concerned, immediately.

 

 

 

 

                                                         

 

                                                                          President

*s