Post Master VyaVsay Post Centre Shivaji Nagar Pune vs Balaji S/O Kishor More

RP No.299 of 2012 is filed against the order of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in FA No.334 of 2011. RP No. 300 of 2012 has been filed against its order in FA No.333 of 2011. Both appeals have been dismissed by the State Commission, on the ground of limitation. Both Revision Petitions are filed by the Post Master, Shivaji Nagar, Pune. We have therefore, considered it appropriate to take up the two matters together for disposal through this common order.

IN this case the complaint had been partly allowed by District Consumer Forum Osmanabad. In the order passed on 11.2.2011, the District Forum had awarded the complainant a compensation of Rs.10,000/- with cost of Rs.2000/-, for inordinate delay in delivery of a letter. Appeal against this order was filed before the State Commission on 24.6.2011, with a delay of 53 days. On the explanation offered for this delay, the State Commission has observed that:- "Delay caused is shown of 53 days. It is stated in the application that certified copy of judgment and order dated 11.02.2011 is received on 02.03.2011. Thereafter matter was sent for legal opinion to Joint Secretary, Ministry of Law. After receipt of opinion on 27.04.2011 opinion was forwarded to Post Master General, Aurangabad. Opinion from Post Master General was received on 01.06.2011. Thereafter papers were handed over to Assistant Solicitor General of India, High Court Bench at Aurangabad."

THE State Commission came to a conclusion that the reason shown for the delay is just shuffling of papers from one office to another, which cannot be considered just or proper. The right accrued to one party cannot be taken away by the negligence of another party.

R.P.No.300 of 2012 The appeal was filed with a delay of 53 days. As per the application for condonation of this delay, the certified copy of the order of the District Forum was received on 2.3.2011. As in the other appeal, opinion of the Ministry of Law, was sought and thereafter order of the Post Master General was obtained for filing of the appeal. The State Commission noted that the delay was caused by mere shuffling of paper from one office to another, which was neither just nor proper. The right accrued to one party as a consequence of this delay cannot be taken away by the negligence of the other party.

WE have heard Shri R.N.Singh, Advocate for the revision petitioner in both cases. We have also carefully perused the relevant records. Learned counsel accepted that the explanation for the delay in these two cases was, as observed by the State Commission, movement of the papers from level to level. He also drew our attention to the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.893 of 2011, wherein it was held that the delay should have been condoned. However, learned counsel could not clarify as to how this decision is applicable to the facts of the two revision petitions before us.

UNDER Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, the right of the person aggrieved by an order of the District Forum, to prefer an appeal before the State Commission, is required to be exercised within a period of 30 days from the date of the order. If this prescribed period is exceeded, the State Commission can entertain the appeal, provided that it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within that period. The relevant provision reads as follows:- "15. Appeal - Any person aggrieved by an order made by the District Forum may prefer an appeal against such order to the State Commission within a period of thirty days from the date of the order, in such form and manner as may be prescribed: Provided that the State Commission may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within that period: [Provided further that no appeal by a person, who is required to pay any amount in terms of an order of the District Forum, shall be entertained by the State Commission unless the appellant has deposited in the prescribed manner fifty per cent. of that amount or twenty-five thousand rupees, whichever is less.] The revision petitioner has not indicated what reasonable cause was shown before the State Commission, in justification of the delay. On the contrary, the petition says- Because the Ld. State Commission has erroneously dismissed the application for condonation of delay. The ld. State Commission failed to appreciate that the petitioners herein are Govt. department and there is a channel for taking final decision in any matter and before taking any final decision the matter has to be examined at various levels and in all this exercise if there is some delay that should have been condoned and the appeal should have been decided on merit."

This contention betrays a total inability on the part of the petitioner to understand the requirement of the law, as contained in the provision cited above. We therefore have no hesitation in rejecting it at the threshold itself. In our view, the State Commission has rightly held that the delay is unexplained and therefore unacceptable.

SURPRISINGLY, the two revision petitions before us have been filed with even longer delays. RP No. 299 of 2012 has been filed with a delay of 77 days and RP No.300 of 2012 with delay of 67 days. From the details enumerated in the applications seeking condonation of delay, we find that the approval of the Post Master General, for filing of the revision petitions was obtained in about a month''s time, from the date of the receipt of the impugned order. Thereafter, the petitioner has taken over four and half months to actually file the revision petition, for which we do not find any reasonable explanation. Therefore, both revision petitions are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay.

IN a very recent case, the question of delay/latches/limitation in the context of Government departments came up for detailed consideration by the Apex Court. The matter arose in Postmaster General and Ors. Vs. Living Media India Limited and Anr. (2012) 3 SCC 563. In this case, in spite of a second opportunity for filing a ''better affidavit'' being granted to the appellant department, no explanation was offered as to why application for procuring certified copy of the impugned judgment could not be filed within the prescribed period and why was it filed only after four months. Hon''ble Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of the department on the ground that there was no proper explanation offered for the delay, except mentioning of various dates. Hon''ble Supreme Court has observed that:- "28 Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condition 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 the 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 the final analysis, both revision petitions fail on two counts. Both have been filed with delays, which are not explained to our satisfaction. In both cases the petitioners have failed to make out any case against the impugned orders. The revision petitions are therefore dismissed. No orders as to costs.