AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS Revision Petition under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act") has been filed by Zila Khadi Gramodyog Board, Deoria (Opposite Party No.1 before the District Forum), challenging the order, dated 22.1.2015, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.P., Lucknow (for short "the State Commission") in Appeal No.2533/2015. By the said order the State Commission has dismissed the appeal filed by the Petitioner as barred by limitation. The Complainant/Respondent No.1 had applied for loan of Rs.1,80,000/ - from the Petitioner for establishing Cement and Jali Industry, after completing all formalities, which was forwarded by the Petitioner to Gorakhpur Regional Rural Bank Branch, Deoria, Respondent No.2 herein, (Opposite Party No.2 before the District Forum). Respondent No.2 sanctioned the loan, which was to be re -paid in 80 monthly instalments. It is the case of the complainant that a subsidy of Rs.60,000/ - was to be received by him from the Petitioner Board, which was neither paid to him nor adjusted against the loan amount granted despite several requests. Being aggrieved, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner and the Bank, he filed Complaint (No.534/2006) before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Deoria (for short "the District Forum"), praying for (i) a direction to the Opposite Parties to pay the subsidy amount of Rs.60,000/ - with interest @ 18% from the date of sanction, i.e., 19.7.2003; (ii) direction to Opposite Party No.2 to charge interest on the loan only after accounting for the subsidy amount as per Rules and (iii) direction to the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.20,000/ - towards damages for mental and physical harassment with Rs.1,000/ - as costs. Vide its order, dated 24.3.2007, the District Forum allowed the complaint with a direction to the Petitioner to pay to the complainant a subsidy of Rs.60,000/ - in his account within one month, failing which the said amount was to carry interest @ 12% from the date of filing of the compliant till realization. A compensation of Rs.2000/ - and costs of Rs.1000/ - were also awarded. While awarding the said amounts the District Forum had also made adverse comments on the conduct of the Petitioner in not granting subsidy to the Complainant, despite several letters by the Bank (Respondent No.2) to it in this behalf. Aggrieved, the Petitioner filed Appeal before the State Commission with a delay of 4 months and 16 days. An application praying for condonation of delay was also filed, in which the following explanation was furnished :
THAT at the very outset, it is relevant to mention here that notice of the present Complaint Case No.534/2006 "Sugandh Tiwari Versus Manager, Zila Khadi Gramodyog Board, Deoria and another" was never received in the office of the present appellant though the present appellant is opposite party no.1 in the above noted complaint case.
THAT the appellant came to know regarding the present complaint case for the first time on 17.6.2014 when notice of Execution Case No.54/2013 "Sugandh Tiwari versus Manager, Zila Khadi Gramodyog Board, Deoria" was received in the office of the present appellant and after that the appellant contacted the office of Assistant District Government Counsel (Civil), Deoria, who inspected the record and it was revealed that notice was presumed to be sufficient on the present appellant and the matter was proceeded ex parte and the judgment was passed on 24.3.2007, ex parte against the present appellant though no notice was received by the present appellant/the opposite party no.1 in the Complaint Case No.534/2006. That A.D.G.C. (Civil), Deoria gave his opinion on 22.7.2014 for further proceedings and the matter was referred to the Head Quarter at Lucknow vide letter dated 28.7.2014 and the Head Quarter on 13.8.2014 proceeded after received of the letter and the file was referred to the legal advisor of the department on 14.8.2014, who gave his opinion for filing appeal before the State Consumer Commission and the same was received on 16.8.2014 and there being holiday, the file was submitted for approval on 19.8.2014 for the chief Executive officer, khadi Board who gave his approval on 22.8.2014 and on 22.8.2014, the Zila Gramodyog Adhikari, Deoria was Directed for filing appeal.
THAT on 28.8.2014, the counsel wrote to the Head Quarter for a draft of Rs.25,000/ - for filing appeal and the matter was referred for finance for allotment, of budget on 29.8.2014 and the budget was allotted on 15.9.2014 and on the basis of above sad allotment letter for order was submitted which was given approval on 16.9.2014.
THAT on 18.9.2014, the order was issued by the legal section and after due proceedings draft was got prepared on 1.10.2014 and the same was issued on 14.10.2014 to the counsel and the same was given to the advocate on 17.10.2014 and the same was issued on 14.10.2014 to the counsel and the same was given to the advocate on 17.10.2014 and there being Diwali holidays the counsel for the khadi board was out of station upto 26.10.2014 and after coming back he informed the District Village Officer to come with record on 2.11.2014 and after perusal of the record, the counsel advised the department to check the record regarding receiving of notice and also come with complete records and the official contacted on 9.11.2014 and after perusal of the details the counsel called for certain other records and to come on 16.11.2014 and on that date, the counsel was out of station and the official again contacted on 20.11.2014 after that the appeal was appeal was drafted and the same has been sworn and the same has been filed without any further delay.
THAT the delay whatsoever is unintentional and caused due to procedure and the same may kindly be condoned in the interest of justice." On a detailed analysis of the cause shown for the delay, the State Commission concluded that no sufficient cause had been made out for condonation of inordinate delay in filing the Appeal. Hence, the Revision Petition. Having heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and perused the explanation furnished for the delay, we are in complete agreement with the State Commission that the explanation furnished for an inordinate delay of over 4 months in filing of the Appeal was absolutely unsatisfactory. The afore -extracted explanation furnished by the Petitioner depicts a typical casual and indifferent approach by the officials of a public authority. Having learnt about the order passed by the District Forum as far back as on 24.3.2007, instead of rolling the file from one table to another, its officials ought to have processed the file personally. In Office of the Chief Post Master General and Anr. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. and Anr., 2012 3 SCC 563, the Hon''ble Supreme Court, while adversely commenting on impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology, has observed that condonation of delay in filing Petitions/Appeals beyond the prescribed period of limitation is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments, and offering usual explanation that file was kept pending due to procedural red tape. In Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, 2011 14 SCC 578, highlighting the object and scope of the Act and deprecating entertainment of belated Petitions, the Hon''ble Supreme Court had also observed that entertainment of highly belated petitions defeats the very object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes. In our opinion, the basic principle to be borne in mind at the time of consideration of an application for condonation of delay is the nature and extent of the prejudice which may be caused to the opposite side, in whose favour valuable rights have accrued by virtue of an order sought to be challenged beyond the period of limitation prescribed in Section 24A of the Act. Bearing in mind the broad principles and the nature of the relief claimed by the Complainant, we are of the opinion that had the said inordinate delay of over four months been condoned by the State Commission, it would have caused further harassment to the Complainant, who has been waiting for subsidy of a paltry sum of Rs.60,000/ - for almost a decade. The Revision Petition, being bereft of any merit, is dismissed accordingly.