Pspcl, (Formerly Known As Pseb) Sub Urban Sub Division vs Manoj Wadhwa

THERE is a delay of 106 days in filing the present Revision Petition. The petitioners/OPs - PSPCL (Formerly known as PSEB) -OP -1 and AEE/PSPCL, Sub -Urban Sub Division, PSPCL, Nakodar, Distt. Jalandhar -OP -2, have moved an application for condonation of delay. The delay is explained in para Nos. 2 & 3 of the application for Condonation of delay, which are reproduced as follows: - ''''2. That the said Revision Petition inadvertently got delayed by 106 days which is unintentional and the same was on account of the file being misplaced in the office of Counsel of Revisionist who had shifted his office from D -148 East of Kailash, New Delhi -110048 to C -387, Defence Colony, New Delhi -110024.

That the said delay is on account of this unforeseen procedural lapse for which Counsel for the Revisionist seeks apology. ''''

THE excuse taken in the application for condonation of delay is far from satisfaction. Such like stories can be created at any time. Moreover, the application for condonation of delay is vague, evasive & leads the Commission nowhere. It is not explained that when the counsel had shifted the office. The date is conspicuously missing. The files of client are very precious to an advocate. It is the bounden duty of the advocate to keep the files properly and notify the dates and result of the case in his diary. Theexpression ''''sufficient cause '''' cannot be erased from Section 5 of the Limitation Act by adopting excessive liberal approach, which would defeat the very purpose of Section 5 of Limitation Act and Consumer Protection Act. There must be some cause which can be termed as sufficient one for the purpose of delay condonation.

IT must be borne in mind that the procedure under C.P.Act is summary procedure. The Act itself fixes time for disposal of a case. The Apex Court in a case under the C.P.Act itself, in AnshulAggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), held that ''''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 ''''.

THE other authorities which go to support the case of the respondent are reported in the cases, R.B. Ramlingam v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, I(2009) CLT 188 (SC), Ram Lal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, &Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others, AIR, 1977 SC 1221. In M/s Ambadi Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Smt. Rajalakshmi Subramanian, where delay of 78 days was not condoned in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 19896 of 2013 decided on 12.07.2013, again the Apex Court while dismissing the Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 33792 of 2013 in Chief Officer, Nagpur Housing & Area Development Board & Anr. V. Gopinath Kawadu Bhagat, decided on 19.11.2013, upholding the order of this Commission did not condone the delay of 77 days.

LASTLY , in Sanjay Sidgonda Patl Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., decided by the Apex Court while dismissing the Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 37183 of 2013, decided on 17.12.2013, upholding the order of this Commission wherein delay of 13 days was not condoned.

THE Revision Petition is hopelessly barred by time and therefore, the same is dismissed as barred by time.