SANTRA DEVI vs Sahara India Pariwar

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 11.05.2011 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, ''the State Commission '') in Appeal No. 1924/2008 - Sahara India Pariwar & Anr. Vs. Santra Devi by which, while allowing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was set aside.

BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner ''s sister Ramila Devi opened account in Sahara 10 Scheme with OP/respondent and complainant was nominated as nominee. Ramila Devi died on 12.7.2001. As per scheme, complainant applied for death help and OP started giving death help of Rs.3,000/ - per month to the complainant, but later on death help was stopped on the ground that legal heirs of Ramila Devi had not filed their affidavits and complainant had filed false affidavit of Shiv Dayal, brother of Ramila Devi. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that complainant tendered fabricated death certificate of Ramila Devi issued from Heart Clinic and Medical Centre, Rewari. It was further pleaded that complainant by fraudulent means obtained payment of Rs.1,62,000/ - till November, 2005 and OP has right to recover the aforesaid amount and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint and directed OP to pay arrears of death help and continue payment till May, 2011. Appeal filed by OP was allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed along with application for condonation of delay and perused record.

HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner on application for condonation of delay. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that on account of illness of petitioner ''s husband, delay occurred in filing revision petition and delay of 542 days may be condoned. Perusal of record reveals that impugned order was passed by learned State Commission on 11.5.2011 copy of which was received by petitioner on 18.6.2011, but revision petition has been filed on 11.3.2013 and thus there was delay of 542 days in filing revision petition. Paragraph 3 (c) of the application for condonation of delay runs as under: "3 (C) Because the husband of the petitioner is sixty years old person and he is suffering from Abdomen disease and various serious problem almost more than two years. (X -Ray, Ultra Sound, Pathology reports are attached with this application) as Annexure PA."

PETITIONER has not given dates from which to which her husband suffered from Abdomen disease. Documents annexed with application apparently reveal that petitioner ''s husband was under some treatment from 19.11.2011 to 19.8.2012. No explanation has been given for delay from 18.6.2011 to 18.11.2011 before which limitation for filing revision petition had already expired and no explanation has been given for period from 20.8.2012 to 11.3.2013 when this revision petition has been filed. As there is no explanation for not filing revision petition upto 19.11.2011 and from 20.8.2012 to 11.3.2013, delay in filing revision petition cannot be condoned in the light of the following judgment passed by the Hon ''ble Apex Court.

INRAM Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, it has been observed; "It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by S.5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the enquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant."

IN R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari 2009 (2) Scale 108, it has been observed: "We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition."

HON ''ble Supreme Court after exhaustively considering the case law on the aspect of condonation of delay observed in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation reported in (2010) 5 SCC 459 as under; "We have considered the respective submissions. The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The legislature does not prescribe limitation with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that they do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek remedy without delay. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a period fixed by the legislature. To put it differently, the law of limitation prescribes a period within which legal remedy can be availed for redress of the legal injury. At the same time, the courts are bestowed with the power to condone the delay, if sufficient cause is shown for not availing the remedy within the stipulated time."

HON ''ble Apex Court in 2012 (2) CPC 3 (SC) - Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority observed as under: "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".

HON ''ble Apex Court in (2012) 3 SCC 563 - Post Master General and Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. and Anr. has not condoned delay in filing appeal even by Government department and further observed that condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the Government departments. Thus, it becomes clear that there is no reasonable explanation at all for condonation of inordinate delay of 542 days. In such circumstances, application for condonation of delay is liable to be dismissed. As application for condonation of delay is to be dismissed, revision petition being barred by limitation is also liable to be dismissed.

CONSEQUENT LY , the revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed as barred by limitation at admission stage with no order as to costs.