ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF vs PRADEEP KUMAR SAHU

This Revision Petition, under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), has been filed by the Engineer-in-Chief, Rural Works, Bhubaneswar, the sole Opposite Party in the Complaint under the Act, against the order dated 09.07.2014, passed by the Odisha State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Cuttack (for short "the State Commission") in Miscellaneous Case No.220 of 2014 in/and First Appeal No. 118 of 2014. By the impugned order, the State Commission has declined to condone a delay of 3 years, 10 months and 23 days in filing of the Appeal by the Petitioner herein and has consequently dismissed both the Application for condonation of delay as well as the main Appeal.

The Appeal had been filed by the Petitioner against the order dated 28.12.2010, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Phulbani (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint Case No. 6 of 2007. By the said order, the District Forum, while holding that there

was deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner in not refunding the amount of 3,00,000/-, deposited with it by the Complainant, Respondent herein, for his registration as a Contractor, had allowed the Complaint and directed it to pay to the Complainant the said amount with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of filing of the Complaint, i.e. 18.01.2007, till payment.

Aggrieved, the Petitioner filed the afore-noted Appeal before the State Commission, albeit, with a delay of 3 years, 10 months and 23 days. An Application, praying for condonation of the said delay, was filed along with the Appeal.

By the impugned order the State Commission has come to the conclusion that the Petitioner has failed to make out a sufficient cause for the said inordinate delay. Hence, the present Revision Petition.

The short question for consideration is whether or not the State Commission has committed a jurisdictional error in not condoning the said delay in filing the Appeal.

We have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner on the said question.

It is trite law that the expression ''sufficient cause'' cannot be construed liberally if negligence, inaction or lack of bonafides are attributable to the party, praying for exercise of such discretion in its favour. It is equally well settled 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. Bearing in mind these broad principles, we are of the view that the State Commission has not committed any jurisdictional error in coming to the conclusion that a case for condonation of the said delay was not made out.

The short explanation for the delay of 3 years, 10 months and 23 days in filing of the Appeal was that the Petitioner had not received the free certified copy of the order passed by the District Forum on 28.12.2010, as alleged, but on 23.04.2012. For the sake of argument, even if it is assumed that the state of affairs was really so, the fact remains that the Appeal had been filed only on 22.02.2014, i.e. with a delay of two years. The said delay is sought to be explained on the specious pleas that it all occasioned because the decision to file the Appeal had been taken by the Government of Odisha on 13.11.2013; the sanction in respect of the amount of 25,000/-, required to be deposited with the Appeal as a statutory deposit, was accorded by the Government on 30.11.2013; vide letter dated 18.12.2013 the Government Pleader was requested to take necessary steps for filing the Appeal; and after completing the necessary formalities the Appeal was filed before the State Commission on 22.02.2014. After receipt of copy of the District Forum order, on 23.04.2012, the casual approach of the Petitioner in pursuing a Court matter, under which it took two years in deciding the future course of action, to be adopted in the matter, and subsequently in filing the Appeal, deserves to be deprecated. Though there may be some justification after decision to file the Appeal was taken by the Government of Odisha on 13.11.2013 but there was completely no explanation for the period from 23.04.2012 to 13.11.2013, i.e. for a period of 1 year and 7 months after the Petitioner had received a copy of the order passed by the District Forum, and for the period from 28.10.2010 to 23.04.2012, i.e. for a period of 1 year and 6 months after the District Forum had passed the final order in the Complaint, wherein it was duly represented by its Counsel and on being non-suited, the said Counsel must have informed it about the directions issued to it. This shows nothing but the lethargy and indifferent attitude of the Petitioner. If the Petitioner, a government instrumentality, was really aggrieved by the fastening of certain liability by the lower Fora, instead of pursuing a

Court matter with least seriousness and diligence, it ought to have been on its toes to ensure that the Appeal was filed immediately without further delay, even after acquiring knowledge of the order passed by the District Forum but that was no so.

Recently, in Postmaster General and Ors. V. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr., (2012) 3 SCC 563, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has been pleased to observe as under : "28. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody, including the Government. 29. In our view, it is right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bona fide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few."

In view of the above, when we are not satisfied with the explanation furnished by the Petitioner, no fault can be found with the impugned decision by the State Commission, which is fortified by the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Sidgonda Patil Vs. Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 37183 of 2013 , decided on 17.12.2013, wherein the Apex Court had refused to condone the delay of even 13 days. We are convinced that condonation of the said delay by the State Commission would have caused further harassment to the Complainant, who, even after passing of the orders by the lower Fora in his favour, is still awaiting refund of his hard earned money, deposited with the Petitioner as far back as in the year 2001.

Accordingly, the Revision Petition is dismissed in limine.