Andhra Pradesh Eastern Power Distribution Company Ltd. vs Puvvala Savitri

1.THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 11.07.2012 passed by the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (in short, ''the State Commission '') in Appeal No. 2892 of 2012 - The Superintending Engineer and Ors. Vs. Smt. Puvvala Savitri & Ors. by which, appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation.

COMPLAINANTS /Respondents filed complaint before District Forum for grant of compensation of Rs.5,00,000/ - on account of death of husband of complainant no. 1 due to electrocution. OP/petitioner contested the complaint and learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint partly and directed OP to pay Rs.1,75,800/ - with interest and cost of Rs. 2,000/ - and Rs.15000/ - as consortium against which, appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed against which, this revision petition has been filed. None appeared for respondents even after service and they were proceeded ex -parte at admission stage.

HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused record.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned State Commission committed error in dismissing application for condonation of delay of 150 days and consequently dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be admitted. Petitioner filed application before learned State Commission for condonation of 150 days delay and paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the application run as under: ''''3. I submit that the copy of the order has been received through BLA in the month of February 2012. Thereafter the said copy has been sent to the corporate office for taking further action. The corporate office sent for legal opinion to the Local BLA and after receipt of the legal opinion, the corporate office sanctioned the statutory deposit to file appeal against the above said order. Immediately after sanctioning the amount filed the present appeal. But by that time the prescribed for appeal has been expired. Therefore, I am filing the present appeal with delay petition. The delay in filing the appeal is neither willful nor wanton, except the reasons mentioned above. In fact, we have got good case in the appeal unless the Hon ''ble Commission may condone the delay in filing the appeal, the petitioner will be put to irreparable loss and hardship.

I submit that taking advantage of the order, the respondents herein filed execution petition No. 15 of 2012 and the said petition is coming for counter and hearing. Unless this Hon ''ble Commission grant stays all further proceedings the petitioners will be put irreparable loss and hardship.

It is therefore prayed that this Hon ''ble Commission may be pleased to condone the delay of 150 days in filing the appeal against the order in C.C. No. 110 of 2011 dated 07.12.2011 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Vizianagaram and pass such other order or orders as this Hon ''ble Commission may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case ''''.

LEARNED State Commission rightly observed in the order that no satisfactory explanation for condonation of delay was given by the petitioner. Petitioner has not cared to mention in the application when and on which date of February 2012 order of District Forum was received. He has also not mentioned when copy of order was sent to the corporate office for legal opinion and when legal opinion was received. Not only this, appeal filed by the petitioner on 12.6.2012 was returned to him on 13.6.2012, but as per application for condonation of delay file got mixed with other files and was traced on 27.6.2012 and was resubmitted on 2.7.2012 meaning thereby, again delay was caused in resubmitting appeal after return and no satisfactory explanation was given for not resubmitting appeal on 27.6.2012 when file was traced.

AS there was inordinate delay of 150 days in filing appeal and again delay in resubmitting appeal, learned State Commission has not committed any error in dismissing application for condoantion of delay in the light of following judgments of Hon ''ble Apex 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. ''''

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. ''''

Hon ''ble Apex Courtin (2012) 3 SCC 563 - Post Master General and Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. and Anr. has not condoned delay in filing appeal even by Government department and further observed that condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the Government departments.

HON ''ble Apex Courtin 2012 (2) CPC 3 (SC) - AnshulAggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority observed as under: ''''It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for filing appeals and revisions in Consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the Consumer disputes will get defeated, if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Foras ''''.

Thus, it becomes clear that there is no reasonable explanation at all for condonation of inordinate delay of 150 days and again delay in resubmitting appeal before State Commission. In such circumstances, application for condonation of delay was rightly dismissed.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on VIII (2013) SLT 725 - State of Rajasthan and Anr. Vs. Bal Kishan Mathur (D) Through LRs. & Ors. in which Hon ''ble Apex Court condoned delay of 6 days in filing appeal as High Court accepted explanation for delay upto 2.11.2006, but appeal was filed on 8.11.2006. In the case in hand, there was delay of 150 days and further delay of 20 days in resubmitting the appeal without any explanation. He also placed reliance on VIII (2013) SLT 95 - EshaBhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of Raghunthpur Nafar Academy and Ors. in which Hon ''ble Apex Court held that if there is only delay of few days, it should be condoned and order of High Court condoning delay of 1236 days was set aside. We agree with the principle laid down by the Hon ''ble Apex Court, but in the case in hand as there was no explanation for condonation of 150 days delay, learned State Commission has not committed any error in dismissing appeal as barred by limitation. We do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

CONSEQUENTLY , the revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.