REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, BARODA vs ANITA MAHENDRU

THE present appeal, filed by the appellant under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') is directed against order dated 26.2.2003 passed by District Forum-II, Udyog Sadan Institutional Area, Mehrauli, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. 2167/2000, entitled Mrs. Anita Mahendru v. Shri V.K. Puri & Ors.

THE facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated are that the respondent Mrs. Anita Mahendru had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum averring therein that from 29.3.1993 to 9.6.1999 she was employed with Shri V.K. Puri, General Manager, Aircommand India Limited. It was stated that she resigned her job on 9.6.1999. It was stated that during her employment with said V.K. Puri, the respondent Mrs. Anita Mahendru was contributing to the provident fund being maintained by the appellant. After resigning from the employment of said Shri V.K. Puri, respondent Mrs. Anita Mahendru requested the appellant for the refund of the provident fund amount. It was stated that the respondent received a refund of Rs. 28,579/- on account of the amount of provident fund payable to her and another sum of Rs. 4,257/- on account of Family Pension from the appellant. However, as per the calculations of the respondent/complainant her amount of PF dues, payable to her was to the tune of Rs. 60,000/- approximately. It was stated that the respondent request a the appellant and her employer to pay the remaining amount of provident fund dues but there was no response either from the appellant or from her former employer. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant and her former employer the respondent had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act. The claim of the respondent in the District Forum was resisted by the appellant. The stand taken by the appellant before the District Forum in nut-shell was that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant and the reason for delay in payment of P.F. dues to the respondent was that the appellant had received the amount of P.F. to be paid to the respondent very late from the former employer of the respondent.

The learned District Forum vide impugned order has held that on the part of the appellant there was delay in making the payment of Rs. 276/- to the respondent/complainant. The learned District Forum on the above ground has allowed the complaint and has directed the appellant to pay a consolidated amount of Rs. 1,000/- to the respondent on account of harassment, cost of litigation etc.

FEELING aggrieved the appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 15 of the Act. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant at length on the question of admission of the present appeal and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. In terms of the provisions contained in Section 15 of the Act, a person, aggrieved by an order, made by the District Forum, can prefer an appeal against such order to the State Commission within period of 30 days from the date of the order. However, proviso to Section 15 of the Act provides that the State Commission may entertain an appeal even after the expiry of the above said period of 30 days. If it is satisfied that there was ''sufficient cause'' for not filing the same within the above said period. The words ''sufficient cause'' occurring in proviso to Section 15 of the Act are of utmost significance. As per settled law culled out from various judicial decisions, the above expression ''sufficient cause'' , though deserves to receive a liberal interpretation, yet, a just and equitable balance has to be maintained between the right secured by the respondent as a result of expiry of the prescribed period of limitation and the injustice of depriving the appellant of adjudication of his grievances on the merits of his appeal for causes beyond his reasonable control, which means the cause is bona fide and beyond the control of the appellant. Though, no hard and fast line can be drawn as to what affords ''sufficient cause'' in a given case, yet, again, as per settled law, any cause which prevents a person from approaching the Court within time is ''sufficient cause''. In doing so, it is the test of a reasonable man in normal circumstances which has to be applied.

ADMITTEDLY, the present appeal has not been filed by the appellant within the prescribed period of 30 days because the order being impugned in the present proceedings was passed by the learned District Forum on 26.2.2003 and the present appeal has been filed by the appellant on 6.6.2003. Therefore, the question requiring consideration on the very threshold is as to whether the appellant has shown sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time within the meaning of proviso to Section 15 of the Act. The appellant, along with the appeal has filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. The reasons for not filing the appeal in time have been stated in Paras 1, 2 and 3 of the above said application which read as under : "1. That the appeal is being filed by the appellant in the above matter against the order dated 26.2.2003 passed by the learned District Consumer Forum-II, Institutional Area, Behind Qutab Hotel, New Delhi - 110016 and the copy of the same was received on 16.4.2003. 2. That the papers of the concerned case were sent from Baroda to the Legal Department of Head Office of the appellant, located at New Delhi for necessary guidance. Thereafter, the opinion of the Advocate was observed. It is only afterwards the appeal was got drafted, typed and prepared and the same is being filed now before this Hon''ble Commission. 3. That there is delay of 22 days in filing the appeal which is bona fide and on genuine reasons stated above and caused due to unavoidable circumstances."

On a perusal of the contents of the above para it is apparent that certified true copy of the order being impugned in the present proceedings was received by the appellant on 16.4.2003 and if the period of limitation for filing the appeal is to be computed, as commencing from the date of communication of the order, as has been held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in case Housing Board, Creported as III (1995) CPJ 28 (SC), the present appeal should have been filed by 16.5.2003. The same, as already stated has been filed much beyond the prescribed period of limitation on 6.6.2003.

THE reasons assigned for not filing the appeal in time as stated in Para 2 of the application virtually are no reasons in the eyes of law because no details have been given as to on which date the case was sent to the Legal Department of the appellant, on which date the file was received back from the Legal Department on which date the matter was referred to the Advocate and on which date the information from the Advocate was received. Only bald statements have been made in the application. Delay in filing the appeal cannot be condoned as a matter of generosity. Proof of ''sufficient cause'' is a condition precedent for the exercise of such discretion by the Appellate Authority. In our above views, we stand fortified by a decision of the Hon''ble National Commission in case Vice Chairman, Creported as III (1995) CPJ 18 (NC)=1986-96 CONSUMER 2731 (NS).

IN the presence of the above facts and the position explained above, in our opinion, whatever liberal interpretation might be put on the words ''sufficient cause'', it would be impossible for us to hold that there was no negligence on the part of the appellant. IN our opinion, as a matter of fact, the appellant has miserably failed to show ''sufficient cause'' for condoning the delay in filing the present appeal and, therefore, the application filed on behalf of the appellant for condoning the delay in filing the present appeal is hereby rejected. The present appeal, filed by the appellant, besides being barred by limitation is also devoid of substance on merits. During the course of arguments the learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that there was no default/deficiency in service on the part of the appellant as the appellant paid the amount of PF dues, payable to the respondent/complainant, soon after the same was received from the former employer of the respondent/complainant. The learned District Forum vide impugned order has held that there was delay on the part of the appellant in paying the sum of Rs. 276/- to the respondent/complainant. In our opinion, in the given facts, the above finding of the learned District Forum suffers from no infirmity. Even the learned Counsel for the appellant could not satisfactorily explain the delay in making the payment of a paltry sum of Rs. 276/- to the respondent/complainant for which the poor consumer had to knock the door of redressal agency established under the Act. The learned District Forum in all has awarded a consolidated sum of Rs. 1,000/- only to be paid to the respondent by the appellant for harassment, cost of litigation etc. In our opinion, the order being impugned in the present proceedings, is a well reasoned order which takes due care of the interest of both the parties and calls for no interference by us in exercise of our appellate jurisdiction. Thus, viewed from all angles, the present appeal, filed by the appellant, is devoid of substance. The same merits dismissal. Accordingly the same is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.