UHBVNL vs Gian Bharti Siksha Samiti

PETITIONER /opposite party aggrieved by order dated 27.1.2011, passed by Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula (short, "State Commission ") has filed the present revision petition. Along with present revision petition, an application seeking condonation of delay of 82 days has also been filed.

BRIEF facts are that respondent/complainant is a consumer of the petitioner having non-domestic connection with sanctioned load of 10 K.W, which is installed in the school premises of the respondent. It is stated that respondent had deposited a sum of Rs.77,815/- with petitioner as development charges on 31.12.2008, but electric supply to the school of the respondent was being supplied through rural feeder. Petitioner despite repeated request of the respondent, is not shifting the high voltage line which is passing over the school. Thus, alleging it is a case of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice, respondent filed complaint before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal (short, ''District Forum ''). In the written statement, petitioner took the plea that if respondent is ready and willing to deposit the amount with respect to line shifting charges, then they have no objection in shifting the aforesaid high voltage line. It is further stated that location of respondent ''s school fall within the rural area and due to this reason the supply is being provided from the rural feeder. Thus, denying any kind of deficiency in service on its part, petitioner has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

DISTRICT Forum vide its order dated 26.4.2010, accepted the complaint by granting the following relief ; "In view of the above observation and admission of both the parties since the complainant is ready to deposit Rs.7,553/- shifting charges, so the Ops are directed to shift the high voltage line passing over the school building within one month from the date of deposit of the amount by the complainant. The Ops are further directed to shift electricity supply of the complainant from agriculture feeder to rural feeder within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the Ops shall be liable to pay Rs.100/- per day penalty till the shifting of the line and connection as stated above. The Ops are further directed to ensure the regular supply to the complainant ''s school by doing needful to increase the capacity of the transformer from where supply is to be released to the school if required. The order be complied with accordingly. "

AGGRIEVED by the order of District Forum, petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed by the State Commission. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

TAKING up the application for condonation of delay, it is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner being a Government department, the file is required to be examined at different level, as such the delay has occurred only due to procedural system. There is no unintentional delay. Thus, there are sufficient grounds for condoning the delay.

ON the other hand, it is contended by learned counsel for the respondent that, no ground whatsoever has been shown for condoning the delay. Grounds on which condonation of delay has been sought read as under ; "3. That the petitioner respectfully submits that delay has occurred in filing the present revision petition within limitation, which has occasioned in process of taking the steps at various levels and in getting the matter approved for filing before this Hon ''ble Commission. The delay in filing the appeal was unintentional on the part of petitioner since UHBVNL being a Govt. Department, the file to challenge order of any court needs comprehensive examination and the file moves from one place to another. In this process, the delay has occurred and the same may kindly be condoned. 4. That moreover the petitioners are having their main legal office at Chandigarh. Whenever a court case is decided throughout Haryana, the same is sent to the head office for taking appropriate action. The head office needs some time to examine the merits of the case and then the matter is dealt by the Office of Legal Remembrance who nominates Standing counsel in Delhi for filing the revision petition, if required. The concerned District Officer is then directed to contact the appointed counsel in Delhi for sending him the necessary papers with regard to filing of revision petition. Thereafter, the file is examined by the counsel for the petitioner in Delhi and he drafts revision petition. The drafted petition is then sent to the District Office for signing affidavits and sometimes the officers are called by the counsel at Delhi for further discussion and then the petition is filed before this Hon ''ble Commission. In this process, enough time expires and delay occurs in filing the revision petition. 5. That the petitioners submits that the delay is neither deliberate nor intentional but has occurred in the circumstances stated hereinabove. "

IT is well settled that "sufficient cause " for non-appearance in each case, is a question of fact.

DELHI High Court in New Bank of India v. Marvels (India), 93 (2001) DLT 558, has held; "No doubt the words "sufficient cause " should receive liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. However, when it is found that the applicants were most negligent in defending the case and their non-action and want of bonafide are clearly imputable, the Court would not help such a party. After all "sufficient cause " is an elastic expression for which no hard and fast guide-lines can be given and Court has to decide on the facts of each case as to whether the defendant who has suffered ex-parte decree has been able to satisfactorily show sufficient cause for non-appearance and in examining this aspect cumulative effect of all the relevant factors is to be seen. "

In Ram Lal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 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 v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC)=I (2009) SLT 701=2009 (2) Scale 108 ", Apex Court has 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. "

SUPREME Court in "Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) " laid down 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. "

Recently, Hon ''ble Supreme Court in Post Master General and Ors. v. Living Media India Ltd. and Anr., I (2012) CLT 338 (SC)=II (2012) SLT 312=(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; "29. 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. 30. 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 landlosers facilitating their rehabilitation /resettlement 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 landlosers. 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 landlosers 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 ; "27. 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. 28. 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. 30. 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. 31. 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. 32. In the light of the above discussion, the appeals fail and are dismissed on the ground of delay. No order as to costs. "

IN the entire application, petitioner has nowhere mentioned any date as to when the copy of impugned order was received by it ; what was the time taken for getting the matter approved for filing the appeal before the State Commission ; who were the officials who dealt with the matter and at what stage of the decision making the delay has taken place. Application is absolutely silent on these material facts. Petitioner is a Government body and is having large number of employees working under it. Inspite of having legal resources at its command, if petitioner being a Government body takes about three months after the expiry of limitation, to file the appeal, then it can only be observed as to how inefficient, careless and negligent are its employees. Despite having all the facilities and infrastructures under it, petitioner ''s officials have acted in a very casual and negligent manner for the purpose of filing appeal before the State Commission.

OBSERVATIONS made by Apex Court in the authoritative pronouncements discussed above, are fully attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case. Thus gross negligence, deliberate inaction and lack of bonafides is imputable to the petitioner. State Commission rightly dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation, as no sufficient cause is made out for condoning the delay of about three months.

EVEN on merits, petitioner has no case in view of admission made by it as apparent from the observations made by the State Commission in its impugned order which read as under ; "It is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant is ready and willing to deposit the amount of Rs.7,553/- as demanded by the opposite parties for shifting of the high voltage line which is passing over the school of the complainant in response to the letter dated 5.3.2010 issued by the opposite parties. Since, the complainant is ready and willing to deposit the line shifting charges, then the appellant - opposite parties are under a legal obligation to shift the same. Thus, District Consumer Forum has rightly issued the direction to the appellant-opposite parties for shifting the electricity supply of the complainant ''s school from agriculture feeder to rural feeder as the location of the complainant ''s school fall under the jurisdiction of the rural feeder and initially the connection was released to the complainant from the rural feeder. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the finding recorded by the District Forum, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order and as such no interference in the impugned order is called for. "

UNDER Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, this Commission can interfere with the order of the State Commission where such State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. There is no illegality or material irregularity on the part of the State Commission in this case. Thus, ex-facie, application for condonation of delay is without any factual and legal basis and has no legs to stand. The same has been filed just to waste the precious time of this Commission. Hence, application stand dismissed. Accordingly, present revision petition being hopelessly barred by limitation is hereby dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only).

PETITIONER is directed to deposit the cost by way of a demand draft in the name of "Consumer Legal Aid Account " within eight weeks from today.

IN case, petitioner fails to deposit the said cost, within the prescribed period, then it shall also be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a., till realization. List the matter for compliance on 8.2.2013. Revision Petition dismissed.