Northern Power Distribution Co. Ltd vs Alwala Mangamma

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 20.02.2013 passed by A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No. 48 of 2012-Alwala Mangamma & Ors. Vs. Northern Power Distribution Co. Ltd. & Ors. by which, while allowing appeal, order of District Forum dismissing complaint was set aside and complaint was allowed.

BRIEF facts of the case are that complainants/respondents are wife and children of deceased Alawala Krishnaiah. It was further alleged that they own a house and obtained electricity service connection for domestic purpose and were paying electricity charges to OP/petitioners regularly. On 13.11.2010 at 5.30 p.m. deceased Alawala Krishnaiah while taking towel came into contact with the service connection wire portion in between the pole No. 28/T and electricity meter and died due to electrocution. FIR was lodged. Notice was issued to OPs to pay compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. As no response was received, alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainants filed complaint before District Forum. OP No. 3 filed written statement and submitted that Alwala Mangamma died due to his own negligence. It was further submitted that service connection was higher rated one and the same ought to have been decreased to low rated electricity and due to higher rated electricity, the service wire and its insulation melted resulting in the electrocution. OP is responsible only for connection in between pole to pole, but not pole to service meter and its wire. Denying any deficiency, OP prayed for dismissal of complaint. OP Nos. 1 and 2 adopted the same written statement. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, dismissed complaint. Appeal filed by the complainants was allowed 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 on the application for condonation of delay and perused record.

PETITIONER filed application for condonation of delay along with revision petition and later on filed another application No. 6670/2013 for condonation of delay and submitted that copy of the impugned order which was dispatched on 25.2.2013 by the State Commission was received by the petitioner on 12.3.2013. Opinion of Counsel in the State Commission was received on 25.3.2013 and Chairman accorded permission for filing revision petition on 17.04.2013 and cheque of Rs.35,500/- was prepared on 26.4.2013. It was further submitted that present Counsel was contacted in the first week of May, 2013 and he received file on 10.5.2013, but due to summer vacations, he was out of station and immediately after re -opening in the first week of July, 2013, he prepared revision petition and filed it on 30.7.2013; so, delay of 70 days may be condoned. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that on account of summer vacations, revision petition could not be filed in time and delay of 70 days in filing revision petition be condoned.

PERUSAL of application clearly reveals that file was received by the Counsel for the petitioner on 10.5.2013, whereas revision petition has been filed on 30.7.2013. No explanation has been given for taking 80 days in preparation of revision petition. It has been mentioned in the application that due to summer vacations, Counsel for the petitioner was out of station. In this Commission, summer vacations were from 3.6.2013 to 28.6.2013, but the Registry was open. As per submissions in the application itself, Counsel for the petitioner prepared revision petition in first week of July, 2013, but no reason has been given as to why was it not filed immediately instead of 30th July, 2013, when everything was ready with him. As there is inordinate delay of 70 days, this delay cannot be condoned in the light of the following judgment passed by the Hon ''ble Apex Court.

IN Ram 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."

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."

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".

HON ''ble Apex Court in (2012) 3 SCC 563 - Post Master General and Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. and Anr. has not condoned delay in filing appeal even by Government department and further observed that condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the Government departments. Thus, it becomes clear that there is no reasonable explanation at all for condonation of inordinate delay of 70 days. In such circumstances, application for condonation of delay is dismissed. As application for condonation of delay has been dismissed, revision petition being barred by limitation is also liable to be dismissed. Consequently, the revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed as barred by limitation at admission stage with no order as to costs.