POSTMASTER, HEAD POST OFFICS & ANR vs MANUJA SHASHIKANT PAWAR

This Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), has been filed by the Postmaster, Head Post Office, Latur, Maharashtra and its counterpart at Tarnaka Post Office, Hyderabad, the Opposite Parties in the Complaint, against the order, dated 18.07.2014, passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Mumbai (for short "the State Commission") in First Appeal No. 62 of 2010. By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the Appeal, preferred by the Petitioners herein, questioning the correctness and legality of the order, dated 29.12.2009, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Latur (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint No. 50 of 2009, preferred by the Respondent/Complainant. The District Forum, while partly allowing the Complaint, had directed the Petitioners to jointly or severally pay the Complainant, by deducting 51,626/- from the amount, 9% interest for 6 years (09.11.2002 to 08.11.2008); 10% bonus on the MIS joint account of the Complainant; and 9% interest from 08.11.2008. The District Forum had also awarded 7000/- towards mental torture and 3000/- towards litigation expenses, to be paid by the Petitioners jointly and severally.

Succinctly put, the facts giving rise to the present Revision Petition, as culled out from the Complaint, are that: on 09.11.2002 the Respondent/Complainant and her late husband had opened MIS joint account with Petitioner No.2, i.e. Postmaster, Tarnaka Post Office, Hyderabad, and had invested 3,00,000/- each in the same. They were assured by the Petitioners that on the said investment for six years they would get interest at the rate of 4500/- per month and on maturity the principal amount alongwith the bonus would be paid. Unfortunately, the husband of the Complainant died on 29.12.2002 and she claimed to have informed Petitioner No.2 in this regard and also furnished death certificate. From the said MIS joint account, opened with Petitioner No.2, at Hyderabad, the Complainant received 4500/- per month up-to November, 2003. Subsequently since the Complainant belonged to Latur, she shifted to the said place from Hyderabad. While doing so, she requested Petitioner No.2 to transfer the said account at Latur, as, while living at Latur, it was not feasible for her to go to Hyderabad to receive the monthly income from the said account. However, her request went unheeded. Since the said MIS joint account was to mature on 08.11.2008, the Complainant, while submitting the original passbook, SB 10(B) form and the death certificate of her late husband with Petitioner No.1 on 16.08.2007, requested Petitioner No.2 to immediately transfer the said account to Latur. She also sent a registered letter in this regard to Petitioner No.2 on 31.01.2008. Even then, when no action was taken by Petitioner No.2 on the said request, on 01.01.2008 the Complainant went to Hyderabad and discussed the matter with him. It seems that thereafter the said account was transferred to Petitioner No.1 at Latur, who on maturity of the same issued a cheque in the sum of 7,91,876/- to the Complainant. Realizing the fact that the Petitioners had paid her lesser amount, the Complainant filed the afore-noted Complaint before the District Forum, praying for directions to the Petitioners to jointly or severally pay her 1,40,374/- with 12% interest on the said sum up-to the date the afore-stated amount was paid to her; 10,000/- as compensation towards mental agony; and 5000/- as litigation expenses.

On consideration of the evidence adduced before it by the parties, the District Forum held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioners. Accordingly, the District Forum, while partly allowing the Complaint, issued the afore-noted directions to the Petitioners.

Being unsuccessful before the State Commission, in the afore-noted Appeal, the Petitioners are before us in the present Revision Petition.

It is pointed out by the office that this Revision Petitions is barred by limitation; inasmuch as there is a delay of 196 days in filing the same. An application praying for condonation of the said delay has been filed alongwith the present Revision Petition. In paragraph 4 of the said application, a short and mechanical explanation for the delay furnished, reads as under: " The Department/REVISIONISTS has got the legal opinion and the file was moving from one section to another section and some of the staff members were busy in official work. Therefore, the present file has been moving here and there in completing the procedural of the Govt. Department and ultimately, on 27.04.2015, appointed Mr. Roshan Lal Goel, Advocate to file the present revision petition."

We have heard learned counsel for the Petitioners on the question of delay.

In our view, the explanation furnished by the Petitioners is wholly vague and unsatisfactory. Though the impugned order had been passed by the State Commission on 18.07.2014 in the presence of Counsel for the Petitioners and a free certified copy of the same had been issued to them on 25.07.2014, yet they did not take any steps to file the Revision Petition within the statutory period of 90 days, as stipulated in Regulation 14 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005, and ultimately filed the same on 07.05.2015, with a delay of 196 days, for which, in our view, there is absolutely no explanation. As noted above, the short explanation, viz., that Department had got the legal opinion and the file was moving from one section to another; some of the staff members were busy in official work; the file was moving here and there in completing the procedural formalities; and ultimately on 27.04.2015 Advocate was appointed to file the present Revision Petition, is a self-serving explanation, which is conspicuously silent about the dates of movement of the file from one desk to another. In the absence of these details, it can safely be inferred that even after receiving the certified copy of the impugned order on 25.07.2014, the Petitioners did not show any seriousness in processing the file expeditiously to ensure that the Revision Petition was filed within time. The Petitioners have not shown any cause, much less a sufficient cause. The negligence and lethargy on their part is writ large. We have no hesitation in observing that the explanation furnished is an example of indifferent and lax attitude of a government instrumentality.

The question of delay by the Government Departments in prosecuting the cases has been engaging the attention of the Courts. 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."

We feel that despite the afore-extracted observations in the case of the Petitioner Department itself, the Petitioners have still not learnt their lesson and continue to function in the same archaic manner. For all these reasons, we are not inclined to condone an inordinate delay of 196 days in filing of the present Revision Petition, more so, when condonation of such an unexplained and long delay would amount to subjecting the Complainant, who, on deposit of her hard earned money with the Petitioners in 2002, is still waiting to have at least the satisfaction of getting some justice after a long drawn litigation, to further harassment.

Consequently, the Revision Petition is dismissed in limine on the ground of inordinate delay.