The Superintendent, Head Post Office Swaimadhopur, The Post Master, Sub -Post Office Boli and The Chief Secretary, Department of Post vs Smt. Sunita Gautam, The Branch Manager, State Bank of Bikaner And Jaipur and The Branch Manager, State B

REVISION Petition No. 915 of 2014 has been filed against the order dated 3.9.2013, passed by Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (short, "State Commission") in First Appeal No. 413 of 2012. The brief facts of the case as per respondent No. 1/complainant are that the respondent No. 1/complainant with petitioner No. 2/opposite party No. 2 had opened a RD account on 10.1.2000 for the payment of Rs. 500/ - per month and accordingly, the respondent No. 1 paid 88 installments i.e. deposit Rs. 44,000/ -.

THE respondent No. 1 on 22.5.2007 submitted the requisite documents duly signed by the respondent No. 1 with the petitioner No. 2 for getting refund of the aforesaid amount, which has not been received by the respondent No. 1 so far. The respondent No. 1 signed various documents and submitted the original pass -book along with withdrawal form with the petitioner No. 2 in faith, who in turn disclosed the fact that cheque of the amount of the respondent No. 1 will be prepared by the Head Office of Swaimadhopur and further assured that on receipt of the same from Head Office, the said cheque shall be handed over to the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 believed open the assurance/version of the petitioner No. 2.

ON not getting the payment by the respondent No. 1, the respondent No. 1 approached petitioner No. 2 who told the respondent No. 1 that since the original document and withdrawal form has been submitted to the opposite party No. 1 has not sent the money therefore, payment is not possible.

THE respondent No. 1 thereafter, approached the petitioner No. 1 for getting the payment as requested above, Officer of the petitioner No. 1 disclosed the fact that on 6.5.2009, a cheque bearing No. 743377 dated 26.5.2007 for a sum of Rs. 64,509/ - in the account No. 4087471 has been sent to the petitioner No. 2 but the petitioner No. 2 and respondent No. 2 has not paid the amount of the said RD to her so far. The respondent No. 1 is entitled to the amount of RD to the tune of Rs. 64,509/ - along with 18% interest per annum w.e.f. 26.5.2007 till its final payment.

DUE to non -payment of the aforesaid amount by the petitioners, the respondent No. 1 as suffered the whole loss of mental agony physical harassment as the respondent No. 1 had been running after the petitioners for redressal of her grievances, therefore, she is entitled to getting compensation on this account to the tune of Rs. 50,000/ - and a sum of Rs. 5,000/ - on account on expenditure of this complaint.

IN response, the petitioner No. 1 while admitting that the respondent No. 1 had an account has only stated that on 28.5.2007, a cheque bearing No. 743377 dated 26.5.2007 for a sum of Rs. 64,509/ - has been sent to the respondent No. 1 as per withdrawal form for SB Account No. 4087471. No details regarding the dispatch or receipt of the said cheque has been given by the petitioner No. 1. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Swaimadhopur, Rajasthan, vide their order dated 2.3.2012, dismissed the complaint.

AGGRIEVED by the order of the District Forum, the respondent No. 1 filed an appeal before the State Commission. Vide their order dated 3.9.2013, State Commission, allowed the appeal and resultantly, the order of District Forum, Swaimadhopur was set aside with the following order; 1. The OP No. 1, 2 and 4 are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 64,509/ - with interest @ 9% since 26.5.2007, till final payment.

For mental tension Rs. 20,000/ - and compensation is also awarded to the appellant.

As no deficiency of services is found against OP Nos. 3 and 5 therefore, the appeal against them is dismissed.

Far compliance of the orders one month time is granted.

HENCE , the revision petition. Along with present revision petition, an application seeking condonation of delay of 54 days has also been filed. The reasons given for the delay are as follows; 2. That after receipt of the certified copy of the order dated 3.9.2013 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, the Department/Revisionist has got the legal opinion of their counsel on 26.9.2013 to file the present petition and similarly, the Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law & Justice vide their legal opinion dated 30.12.2013 advised the petitioners to file the present revision petition. Therefore, the present file has been moving here and there in completing the procedural of the Govt. Department and ultimately, on 10.1.2014, the Ministry of Law & Justice nominated and appointed Mr. Roshan Lal Goel, Advocate to file the present revision petition.

IT is well settled that "Sufficient Cause" for condoning the delay in each case is a question of fact.

WE are of the view that the petitioners have failed to give any proper justification for the delay of 54 days. The petitioners have failed to give day to day justification with dates as also "Sufficient Cause" for condoning the delay of 54 days. Apex Court in case Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority,, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) has observed; 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 Supreme Court in Post Master General and others vs. Living Media India Ltd. and another : (2012) 3 SCC 563 has held; 24. After referring various earlier decisions, taking very lenient view in condoning the delay, particularly, on the part of the Government and Government Undertaking, this Court observed as under;

It needs no restatement at our hands that the object for fixing time -limit for litigation is based on public policy fixing a lifespan for legal remedy for the purpose of general welfare. They are meant to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but avail their legal remedies promptly. Salmond in his Jurisprudence states that the laws come to the assistance of the vigilant and not of the sleepy.

Public interest undoubtedly is a paramount consideration in exercising the courts'' discretion wherever conferred upon it by the relevant statutes. Pursuing stale claims and multiplicity of proceedings in no manner sub -serves public interest. Prompt and timely payment of compensation to the land losers facilitating their rehabilitation esettlement is equally an integral part of public policy. Public interest demands that the State or the beneficiary of acquisition, as the case may be, should not be allowed to indulge in any act to unsettle the settled legal rights accrued in law by resorting to avoidable litigation unless the claimants are guilty of deriving benefit to which they are otherwise not entitled, in any fraudulent manner. One should not forget the basic fact that what is acquired is not the land but the livelihood of the land losers. These public interest parameters ought to be kept in mind by the courts while exercising the discretion dealing with the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Dragging the land losers to courts of law years after the termination of legal proceedings would not serve any public interest. Settled rights cannot be lightly interfered with by condoning inordinate delay without there being any proper explanation of such delay on the ground of involvement of public revenue. It serves no public interest.

The Court further observed;

It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us.

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 bonafide, 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 the 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 bonafide 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 government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few.

Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay.

In view of our conclusion on Issue (a), there is no need to go into the merits of Issues (b) and (c). The question of law raised is left open to be decided in an appropriate case.

In the light of the above discussion, the appeals fail and are dismissed on the ground of delay. No order as to costs.

UNDER these circumstances, no sufficient cause is made out for condoning the delay of 54 days in filing the present petition. Accordingly, application for condonation of delay is not maintainable. Consequently, the present revision petition being hopelessly barred by limitation is hereby dismissed with cost of Rs. 5,000/ - (Rupees Five Thousand Only). Cost of Rs. 5,000/ - to be deposited in the ''Consumer Legal Aid Account'' of this Commission, within four weeks from today. In case, petitioners fail to deposit the said cost within the prescribed period, then they shall also be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a., till realization. List on 21.3.2014 for compliance.