Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board vs DHAN SINGH

THIS appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 27.8.2002 in Complaint Case No. 94/2001 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rajnandgaon (hereinafter called the ''District Forum'' for short) directing C.S.E.B. to pay the sum of Rs. 50,897.00 along with 9% interest as also cost of the complaint.

AS the appeal is time-barred the appellant has filed an application under Section 15(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for condonation of delay, together with an affidavit of Shri N.J. Prasad, Executive Engineer, C.S.E.B. The appeal has been filed on 30.12.2002 against the order dated 27.8.2002. It appears that there is delay of 2 months and 23 days. The appellant has prayed for condoning the delay and the reasons assigned for the same are administrative procedure and necessary sanction required for filing the appeal. It has been averred in the application under Section 15(2) that ''the appellant always diligent in processing the case and delay occurs due to administrative process which are good and sufficient ground for condonation of delay. The details of correspondence between the officers of the Board interest have also been mentioned in the aforesaid application and copies of the letters have been filed as Annexure-A5 to Annexure-A10.

The respondents have not filed any reply to the aforesaid application but have vehemently opposed the same during the course of arguments.

AFTER hearing the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties and perusal of the record the only question that is to be decided is whether a delay of 2 months and 23 days on account of administrative procedure is a good cause for condonation of delay? A bare perusal of the application and the Annexure reveals that most of the time was wasted in correspondence between the Law Officer and other officers of the opposite party/appellant Board. The first letter dated 10.9.2002 Annexure-5 was written by the Executive Engineer to the Law Officer of CSEB, Danganiya, Raipur i.e., after nearly 13 days from the date of impugned order. It is also mentioned at the end of Annexure-5 that necessary instructionsmay be issued so that necessary action may be taken within the period of limitation. It appears that the Executive Engineer was fully aware of the period of limitation but even then he had written the letter after nearly half of the period of limitation for filing the appeal had already elapsed. Vide letter dated 21.10.2002 Annexure-A7 the Law Officer had asked the Additional Supdtg. Engineer to seek legal opinion from Shri Kanak Tiwari, Advocate, Durg. Annexure-A9 dated 30.11.2002 reveals that in pursuance of letter dated 21.10.2002 the Executive Engineer tried to contact the named Counsel and to obtain his opinion but the said Counsel was not available at Durg and could be contacted at Bilaspur on 26.11.2002. The said Counsel refused to give any opinion either orally or in writing regarding the relevant case. We have noticed that a period of more than one month was spent only in contacting a particular Counsel. It is also mentioned in Annexure-A9 that copy of the notice received on 30.11.2002 is also enclosed herewith. We have also observed that copy of notice issued by District Forum, Rajnandgaon dated 27.11.2002 has already been filed as Annexure - A6 and it appears that the reference in Annexure - A9 is regarding the said notice. Again Annexure - A10 dated 10.12.2002 is a copy of the letter/memo sent by the Law Officer, CSEB, Raipur to Executive Engineer, Bhilai wherein it has been mentioned that ''on the basis of the instructions received on phone we tried to contact some Senior Counsel at Durg to obtain his opinion but no Counsel of Durg was prepared to give his opinion.'' It is also mentioned that Mr. Sushant Tiwari, Advocate, Rajnandgaon has expressed his opinion and copy of the opinion was sent to the Law Officer, Raipur. It was again mentioned in the letter/memo Annexure-A10 that necessary instructions may be issued in the matter keeping in view the seriousness of the case as well as limitation.

IT is mentioned in Para 12 of the application for condonation of delay that the officer-in-charge ultimately contacted Shri H.N. Vyas, Advocate, Raipur on 14.12.2002 and the said Advocate advised the appellant to file the appeal before this Commission and the appeal was finally filed on 19.12.2002. In the facts of the case we find that the officers of the appellant have taken the matter very casually. We are of the opinion that such callous and careless attitude of a Public Sector Undertaking like CSEB cannot be accepted. It appears from the perusal of the application and affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay that the concerned officers have adopted a leisurable and careless attitude though they were well aware of the period of limitation available for filing the appeal. Such attitude cannot afford good and sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Appeal is to be filed within 30 days and no special privilege can be granted to Public Sector Undertaking. Delay of each day is to be explained. In case sufficient cause is shown the delay of even longer periods may be condoned but where no sufficient cause is shown for filing the appeal belatedly, the delay of even one or two days may not be condoned. In the instant case the delay is of 2 months 23 days which is quite a longer period and all the time has been spent by concerned officers in making correspondence and trying to contact a particular lawyer who was not available. In our opinion this cannot be held to be sufficient cause for condoning the delay. During the course of arguments the learned Counsel for appellant placed reliance on AIR 2000 SC 2306, State of Bihar & Ors. v. Indra Nand Mishra and Others wherein the petition could not be filed against the order due to fear of contempt and various coercive orders passed by the Court. Delay of 679 days in filing the special leave petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India was condoned by the Supreme Court holding that sufficient cause was shown by the petitioner. But in our opinion the appellant cannot take advantage of the aforesaid case as the appellant totally failed to establish sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation.

HENCE the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently the appeal also stands dismissed. The appellant shall bear its own cost of this appeal and shall pay that of the respondents which is quantified at Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred) for each of the parties. Appeal dismissed.