PROJECT DIRECTOR, D.R.D.A. vs BOMMI REDDY LAKSHMI REDDY

IN this application, the petitioner seeks condonation of delay of 470 days in preferring FA.SR. No. 2423/1997 questioning the order dated 16.4.1996 of the District Forum at Cuddapah in O.P. No. 188/1995 allowing the said OP preferred by the 1st respondent herein, and directing the appellant herein to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and costs of Rs. 300/- within one month from the date of the said order.

IT is not in dispute that the order was made on 16.4.1996. IT is seen from the copy of the order filed alongwith the appeal that it was despatched in May, 1996. The reason for the delay is stated by the present Project Director of the D.R.D.A., Cuddapah as follows: "This order has been passed on 16.4.1996 and it was despatched on 9.5.1996 to the then Government Pleader K. Sudarshan Reddy. The then Government Pleader did not send the copy of the order to our office. When the case was pending before the District Consumers Forum, the Project Director is different and our office was not in know of the disposal of the O.P. 188/ 1995, till we received E.P. notice. I submit the 1st respondent herein filed E.P. No. 24/1997 and the District Consumers Forum issued a notice, which was received in my office on 10.9.1997 and I directed my office to search for the concerned file. The office staff searched for the file and found in the file, no copy of the District Consumers Forum order. Then I applied for a certified copy of the order and the same was furnished on 11.19.1997, and immediately I sent my Asst. Project Officer, G. Gopal to Hyderabad for preferring the appeal by the Government Pleader. So in this appeal there is a delay of 470 days. The delay is not wanton or wilful."

The learned Government Pleader for the petitioner, Mr. S. Ranga Reddy, states that the deponent of the affidavit dated 28.9.1997 in support of the present application was not the Project Director when order dated 16.4.l996 was made in the O.P. Therefore, it cannot be within his personal knowledge whether the then Government Pleader, Mr. K. Sudarshan Reddy sent a copy of the order to their office or not - admittedly the order was received by the then Government Pleader on 9.5.1996 itself. No affidavit of the said Government Pleader was filed. He could not also state whether the then Project Director was not aware about the disposal of O.P. No. 188/1995. It is also not stated when exactly the application was made, the date on which the application was made for a copy of the order which was furnished on 11.9.1997. Under the circumstances, we find that there is no proper explanation for the delay in presenting the appeal and that no sufficient cause is made out for condoning the delay. The learned Counsel, no doubt seeks to rely on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Chandramani and Others, (1996) 3 Supreme Court Cases 132, and also on an another judgment of the Supreme Court in Special Telisildar, Land Acquisition, Kerala v. K.V. Ayisumma, (1996) 10 Supreme Court Cases 634. But those cases did not deal with the special provisions under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (''the Act" for short), wherein the time provided for preferring an appeal to the State Commission is only thirty days under Section 15 of the Act. The time provided for preferring an appeal to the National Commission and to the Apex Court also is only thirty days under Sections 19 and 23 respectively. In para 4 of the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act, it is specifically stated that "to provide speedy and simple redressal to consumer disputes, a quasi judicial machinery is sought to be set up at District, State and Central levels. If such is the objective for which these Tribunals are constituted, it will be incumbent upon the various agencies to organise themselves in such a manner that delays are avoided in every respect. It is the duty of these agencies to set up machineries for expeditious dealing of these matters. In State of Haryana v. Chandramani and Others (supra), the Supreme Court observed as follows: "The Government at appropriate level should constitute legal cells Is to examine the cases whether any legal principles are involved for decision by the Courts or whether cases require adjustment and should authorise the officers to take decision or give appropriate permission for settlement. In the event of decision to file appeal the needed prompt action should be pursued by the officer responsible to file the appeal and he should be made personally responsible for lapses, if any. Equally, the State cannot be put on the same footing as an individual. The individual would always be quick in taking the decision whether he would pursue the remedy by way of an appeal or application since he is a person legally injured while State is an impersonal machinery working through its officers or servants".

This judgment was rendered by the Apex Court on 30.1.1996. Nothing has been stated as to what type of machinery was set up by the 1st respondent agency for the purpose of avoiding delays in matters like this. Whereas the delay that was sought to be condoned before the Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Chandramani and Others, (supra), was 109 days, the delay in the present case is 470 days.

FOR the reasons stated, we are unable to exercise our discretion in favour of the petitioner. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is rejected. We have heard the learned Counsel on both sides on the question whether the order of the District Forum is vitiated by any illegality or material irregularity or is without jurisdiction. The learned Government Pleader, Mr. S. Ranga Reddy submits that the District Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint because no consumer dispute was made out as there was no service hired by the complainant for consideration. It was pursuant to the policy of the Government that the grant was being given to successful borewells, the minimum yields of which were 7200 litres per hour and no question of payment of consideration by the complainant was involved and there was no service whatsoever hired from the Authorities making the grant. The learned Government Pleader places before us a decision of the National Commission in Himachal Weavers Pvt. Ltd. v. Himachal Pradesh Financial Corporation, III (1993) CPJ 267(NC)=1993 (3) CPR 285 (NC).That was a case where the subsidy which was sanctioned to the complainant was not released. The National Commission held as follows: "After hearing the learned Counsel for both the parties, we are of the opinion that in the present case the dispute which is the subject matter is not a ''consumer dispute'' of the complaint as defined in the Act. The main grievance of the complainant Company is that H.P.F.C. (Himachal Pradesh Financial Corporation) has not disbursed the sanctioned amount of Central Subsidy and that the Central Government is estopped from withdrawing the Central Subsidy as the complainant Company has acted upon the promises extended by that Government..... The complainant Company has not hired any ''service'' of the Central Government for consideration for providing Central Subsidy to it. As far as Himachal Pradesh Government is concerned, it was only disbursing the subsidy as and when it received it from the Central Government. Therefore, in such circumstances, the complainant cannot be said to be a ''consumer'' of ''service'' as defined under the Act".

The same principle applies to the facts of the present case. In the circumstances, we are satisfied that the Cuddapah District Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint of the 1st respondent herein, who was the complainant in O.P. No. 188/1995 as there was no consumer dispute and the complainant was not a consumer as those expressions are defined by the Act. The order of the District Forum is, therefore, without jurisdiction and is vitiated by illegality. The order dated 16.4.1996 in O.P. No. 1988/1995 is set aside in exercise of our revisional powers under Section 17(b) of the Act. Application disposed of.