G.B.Pant Hospital vs Avtar Kishan

THIS revision petition challenges the order dated 31.10.2011 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (for short, ''the State Commission '') in F.A. no.08/543 by which the State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners against the order dated 05.02.2008 passed by the District Forum (Central), Kashmere Gate, Delhi by which the complaint filed by the respondents was allowed directing the petitioners no.1 and 2 jointly or severally to pay a sum of Rs.3 Lakhs (including the charges taken by the petitioners) as compensation to the respondents and also to pay them a sum of Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation. The State Commission vide its impugned order also imposed cost of Rs.10,000/- on the petitioners while dismissing their appeal. The petitioners, thus, have approached this Commission challenging the concurrent finding of the District Forum and the State Commission holding the petitioners no.1 and 2 guilty of deficiency in service and directing them to pay compensation/cost as per the impugned order. There is a delay of 153 days in filing the revision petition for which the petitioners have filed an application for condonation of delay. Notices were, therefore, issued to the respondents on the application for condonation of delay as well as on the revision petition.

WE have heard learned Ms.Bindya Savara, Advocate for the petitioners and learned Mr.Madhurendra Kumar, Advocate for the respondents on the request of the petitioners for condonation of delay in filing this revision petition. The report submitted by the Registry shows that the impugned order was passed by the State Commission on 31.10.2011 and it was received by the petitioners on 15.12.2011. The revision petition came to be filed on 14.08.2012. Thus there is a delay of 153 days after deducting the period taken for obtaining the certified copy and the prescribed period of 90 days for filing the revision petition. The application filed by the petitioners for condonation of delay, however, does not indicate the period of delay in filing the revision petition. In support of the request for condonation of delay, it is submitted by the petitioners that the impugned order was received on 15.12.2011 and the decision to challenge this order was taken and a brief note was prepared in December itself for seeking the approval of the Health and the Law Department of the State Government to file the present revision petition. However, since initially the request was turned down by the Law Department, it was resubmitted with more details and grounds of challenge including relevant literature on the subject. Finally, the approval for filing the revision petition was granted and the same was received on 25.05.2012 and the permission to engage lawyer was received on 08.06.2012. However, because of the courts being closed for the summer vacation, the case file was assigned to the counsel for preparing the revision petition on 09.07.2012. Thereafter, the counsel was quite busy in arranging her cases as the courts were opened after the vacation and it took quite some time for preparing the revision petition and hence, there was delay in filing the same. After preparing the draft of the revision petition, it is submitted that the same was sent to the Hospital for finalization thereof and the final revision petition was then handed over to the counsel on 27.07.2012 who filed it on 14.08.2012. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the delay is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the reasons submitted in the application. She has further submitted that since the delay in question occurred because of the procedure which is required to be followed by the government institution/department and the delay in question was neither intentional nor deliberate, the same may be condoned. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has opposed the application for condonation of delay and has submitted that the delay of 153 days in filing the revision petition beyond the period of limitation prescribed for the purpose is inordinate and cannot be condoned in the given facts and circumstances. He submitted that the petitioners have failed to give any satisfactory explanation to justify the period of delay and hence, the application deserves to be rejected.

WE have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

AS indicated above, the petitioners have failed to even mention the period of delay in filing the revision petition. That itself is an indication of casual approach adopted by the petitioners while drafting and submitting the application for condoning the inordinate delay of 153 days. Coming to the explanation given in support of the delay, we may note that after the preparation in December, 2011 of the proposal for seeking approval of the government, it is not indicated as to when the proposal was actually sent to the government for its approval and where and why the delay took place from the beginning of January, 2012 till 25th May, 2012 when approval is stated to have been granted by the government for filing the revision petition. Day to day explanation is required in support of the period of delay. Between the preparation of the proposal for seeking approval and the grant of approval, there is a gap of about 145 days for which no explanation, much less satisfactory, has been offered. Even after the grant of approval of the government which was received on 25.05.2012, further time of 13 days was taken to engage the counsel by which time, it is submitted that the courts were closed for summer vacation. This explanation is nothing but a sham since it is common knowledge that in spite of courts being on vacation, the Registry remains open during the summer vacation and the revision petition could have been filed without further loss of time. Be that as it may, again more than a month ''s time was taken to assign the case to the counsel on 09.07.2012 and here again without explanation in support of delay on day to day basis, it has simply been indicated that the final approval to the draft of the revision petition was given to the counsel on 27.07.2012. As if this was not enough, in spite of final approval of draft revision petition and its being handed over to the counsel on 27.07.2012, further delay was caused and the revision petition was actually filed only on 14.08.2012. Considering the contents of the application for condonation of delay, we have no manner of doubt that the petitioners have given vague and general explanation and have miserably failed to demonstrate any sense of urgency on their part at any stage after the receipt of the impugned order and till the revision petition was actually filed on 14.08.2012 challenging the same. We are, therefore, convinced that the explanation given by the petitioners cannot be regarded as satisfactory or sufficient which would persuade us to condone the inordinate delay of 153 days in filing this revision petition. While dealing with the question of condonation of delay, it would be pertinent to refer to the following observations of the Apex Court in the matter of Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority IV (2011) CPJ 65 (SC) "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."

DECISION of Anshul Aggarwal (supra) has been reiterated in the case of Cicily Kallarackal Vs. Vehicle Factory, IV (2012) CPJ 1(SC) 1, wherein Hon ''ble Supreme Court observed thus:- "4 This Court in Anshul Aggarwal v. NOIDA, (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) has explained the scope of condonation of delay in a matter where the special Courts/Tribunals have been constituted in order to provide expeditious remedies to the person aggrieved and Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is one of them. Therefore, this Court held that while dealing with the application for condonation of delay in such cases the Court must keep in mind the special period of limitation prescribed under the statute (s). 5. In the instant case, condoning such an inordinate delay without any sufficient cause would amount to substituting the period of limitation by this Court in place of the period prescribed by the Legislature for filing the special leave petition. Therefore, we do not see any cogent reason to condone the delay. 6. Hence, in the facts and circumstance of the case as explained hereinabove, we are not inclined to entertain these petitions. The same are dismissed on the ground of delay ".

THE Apex Court has also highlighted that while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, the Court must bear in mind the object of expeditious disposal of consumer disputes which would get defeated if the Court was to entertain highly belated petitions. Keeping in view the aforesaid settled position in law and the fact that the petitioners have miserably failed to offer any reasonable and cogent explanation in support of the delay which could constitute sufficient cause as envisaged under law to condone the inordinate period of 153 days of delay in filing this revision petition, we are not inclined to allow the application and hence, the same stands dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the application for condonation of delay, the revision petition also stands dismissed as barred by limitation with no order as to costs.