CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL KARNATAKA CIRCLE vs K. Gopalakrishna Nayak

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioners/OPs against the order dated 30.03.2011 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (in short, ''the State Commission '') in Appeal No. 4125 of 2010 - The Chief Post Master General, Karnataka Circle & Ors. Vs. K. Gopalakrishna Nayak & Ors. by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld.

BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant no.1/respondent no.1 opened PPF Accounts (Minor Accounts) in the names of his son and daughter complainant nos.2 & 3/respondent nos. 2 & 3 with OP No.1. Complainant nos. 2 & 3 attained majority on 30.6.2006 and 30.3.2008, respectively. It was further submitted that complainants were entitled to interest @ 11% p.a. and other tax benefits as per terms & conditions as on the date of opening of accounts, but OP by letter dated 13.7.2009 asked complainant no. 1 to regularise PPF account and further apprised that deposits exceed the limits during 2002-03 & 2004-05 and further asked complainant no. 1 to refund interest of Rs.1,30,000/- and Rs.99,001/-, respectively. Complainant protested, but OP apprised that amount has to be recovered from the complainant to regularise the transactions. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainants filed complaints before District forum. OP contested complaints. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to approach Government under power of relax recommending for payment of interest to the excess deposits in minor accounts and refund the excess deposits along with Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 3,000/- as costs. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed along with application for condonation of delay. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners at admission stage and perused record.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners submitted that delay in filing revision petition be condoned. He has not mentioned period of delay to be condoned in the application as well as in the affidavit, but as per office report, there is delay of 280 days in filing revision petition.

PETITIONER along with revision petition filed application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay and submitted as under: "That the delay was caused due to the time taken to take the sanction for filing of this revision petition as for the same the office of Chief Postmaster General, Bangalore, Post Master General South Karnataka Region and the Director of Post services was contacted. Also a legal opinion of Branch Secretariat was sort for and the Ministry of Finance sought some clarifications, which resulted in delay ".

Later on, petitioner filed detailed affidavit for condonation of delay in which, delay has been explained as under: "That on 26.4.2011 the case was processed at the office of the Chief Postmaster General, Bangalore and directed PMG SK Region to decide the case and take action vide letter dated 26.4.2011. That the decision was taken on 18.8.2011 to implement the order partially by the Director of Postal Services. The aspect of regularization of excess deposits was referred to Postal Directorate after implementing the Ld. District Consumer ''s order partially. That on 19.10.2011 the Post Directorate (FS Section) vide letter dated 19.10.2011 directed the PMG SK to obtain legal opinion of branch Secretariat and furnish the same to directorate since Ministry of Finance sought some clarifications (DEA). That on 27.10.2011 the SPO ''s Udupi was addressed to send reply immediately vide PMG SK letter. That SPO Udupi replied to some of the queries raised by the directorate vide their letter dated 18.11.2011. That the Law Ministry was addressed seeking their opinion in the case on 26.12.2011. That the Law Ministry offered its opinion on 30.12.2011 stating that it is a fit case to file revision petition before this Hon ''ble Commission. That the PMG SK Region replied the queries and also sent the opinion of Law Ministry to ADG (FS) on 3.01.12. The FS Section asked PMG SK Region to send Law Ministry opinion by return Fax. That on 16.1.2012 the copy of the opinion of Law Ministry was sent to ADG (FS) along with replies to queries. That the Postal Directorate, New Delhi FS Section vide their letter dated 21.2.2012 intimated that Revisionist Department have taken the proposal of filing the revisionist Department have taken the proposal of filing the revision petition against the order dated 30.3.2011 of KSCDRC Bangalore in the present case and further referred the matter to Ministry of Law and Justice to nominate a counsel from its panel. That the nomination of the counsel was received from the Postal Directorate, New Delhi on 5.3.12. That Shri Rajashekara, Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Mysore Division, Mysore was appointed on 7.3.12, by the Revisionist Department to assist the Counsel in filing the Present Revision Petition and for signing the documents, etc. That on 24.4.12 the present Revision Petition was filed before this Hon ''ble Commission.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners submitted that on account of official correspondence, delay occurred which may be condoned in the interest of justice. He has placed reliance on LPA 531/2012 - Union of India & Ors. Vs. Kamal Kumar in which Hon ''ble Delhi High Court condoned delay of 136 days in filing appeal by Union of India.

HON ''ble Apex Court in 2012 STPL (Web) 132 SC - Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. while elaborately dealing with delay in filing revision petition by the Chief Post Master General, declined to condone delay of 475 days in filing Special Leave Petition and observed as under : "11. There is no explanation for not applying for certified copy of the impugned judgment on 11.09.2009 or at least within a reasonable time. The fact remains that the certified copy was applied only on 08.01.2010, i.e. after a period of nearly four months. In spite of affording another opportunity to file better affidavit by placing adequate material, neither the Department nor the person in-charge has filed any explanation for not applying the certified copy within the prescribed period. The other dates mentioned in the affidavit which we have already extracted, clearly show that there was delay at every stage and except mentioning the dates of receipt of the file and the decision taken, there is no explanation as to why such delay had occasioned. Though it was stated by the Department that the delay was due to unavoidable circumstances and genuine difficulties, the fact remains that from day one the Department or the person/persons concerned have not evinced diligence in prosecuting the matter to this Court by taking appropriate steps.

In the present case, impugned order dated 30.3.2011 was received by petitioner on 20.4.2011 and as per affidavit the case was processed at the office of Chief Post Master General, Bangalore on 26.4.2011 and directed Post Master General SK Region to take action and decision was taken on 18.8.2011 to implement the order partially by the Director of Postal Services meaning thereby after almost 4 months decision was taken to implement the order of District Forum partially, but later on decided to challenge the impugned order. Perusal of affidavit further reveals that vide letter dated 21.2.2012, Postal Directorate directed the petitioner to file revision petition and Shri Rajashekara, Senior Superintendent of Post Offices was appointed to assist the Counsel in filing the present revision petition, but revision petition was filed on 24.4.2012 meaning thereby again almost 2 months '' time was taken in preparing and filing revision petition after direction to file revision petition. Petitioner has not given any cogent explanation for condonation of delay between 26.4.2011 to 18.8.2011 and 21.2.2012 to 24.4.2012 and in such circumstances, in the light of Hon ''ble Apex Court ''s judgment in Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. (Supra), we do not find it appropriate to condone the inordinate delay of 280 days.

AS there is inordinate delay of 280 days, this delay cannot be condoned in the light of the following judgment passed by the 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. "

Inram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields 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 Court in 2012 (2) CPC 3 (SC) - Anshul Aggarwal 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 280 days. Revision petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay alone.

In the light of aforesaid judgements, we do not find it appropriate to condone the inordinate delay of 280 days. As application for condonation of delay has been rejected, revision petition being barred by time is liable to be dismissed.

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