UNION OF INDIA vs Kavita Madan

REVISION petition has been filed against the order dated 15th October 2012 passed by the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal in appeal nos. 72 of 2011 and 2166 of 2010 filed by the respondent whereby both the appeals were dismissed. The brief facts of the case as given by the respondent/complainant are that the respondent has gone to Muzaffarnagar along with her two daughters Prachi and Bhagi and father-in-law Kishan Lal Madan to attend a wedding ceremony. The respondent purchased tickets on 06.02.2008 from petitioner no. 3 for the return journey from Muzaffarpur on 18.02.2008 in train no. 1123. She got reserved tickets nos. 49, 50, 51 and 52 for herself and her family.

ON 18.02.2008 respondent went to Muzaffarpur Railway Station along with her two daughters and father-in-law for the return journey by train no. 1123 in coach no. S 3 on reserved seats no. 49 to 52 and the journey was to start at 05.00 p m. When the train started from Muzaffarpur and reached Sonepur Railway Station at about 02.00 a m most of the passengers were asleep. At this time 5-6 boys boarded the train and after sometime they broke the chains which were attached to the suit cases and they collected the suit cases at the gate of the train. At this time, the respondent woke up and raised a cry and other passengers also woke up. At this the boys threw the suit cases from the running train and when the train slowed down they jumped out of the train. Her father-in-law gave a complaint of this incident to the guard at Chapra Railway Station. The guard told him to inform the TT. But there was no TT available in the train. Her father-in-law tried to lodge the complaint at Chapra Junction, Lucknow junction and Bara Banki station but as the stoppage time was less and they had children with them, they could not lodge the complaint. Out of the eight suit cases stolen by the boys, the respondent had three suit cases of VIP make in blue colour. One was of 36 ", the second was medium and the third of small size. In the big suit cases there were five suits, six sarees and woolens as well as gold jewellary which included 1 gold necklace, 2 rings, 2 tops, 2 ear rings and four bangles weighing about 10 tolas. The second suit case contained 5 sets each of cloths of the 2 children, 4 sweaters. The third suit case contained 4 trousers, 4 shirts, 1 coat other clothes and the passbook of saving account no. 10504757769 of State Bank of India, Murrar. The total value of the goods was about Rs. 1.00 lakh. When the train reached Gwalior on 20.02.2008, the respondent ''s father-in-law gave a written complaint to the police station GRP at Gwalior. When no action was taken on this complaint, then her father-in-law wrote letters dated 02.04.2008, 10/11.02.2009 by registered post to Mazaffarpur, Chapra, Sonepur Station and on 11.11.2009 but the petitioners did not give any suitable reply. On 30.04.2008, the Commissioner of Police, Railways Muzaffarpur informed that due to lack of any evidence the police had filed a final closure report on the complaint. The petitioner/ opposite party in their written statement have denied the entire complaint stating that the alleged incident has been concocted to make a legal issue and gain unlawful advantage. It is denied that any thief had entered the Barauni Gwalior mail no. 1123 on 08.02.2008. No information of any such incident has been received from any other passenger. It is also denied that there was no TT or guard in the train. The TT was present throughout the journey and checking the tickets of the passengers from time to time. It is also denied that due to less stoppage time of the train, the respondent could not make report of the alleged incident as the complaint book available in the coach itself in which any passenger can note down his complaint.

THE District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gwalior (MP) vide order dated 17.08.2010, while allowing the complaint ordered that "the opposite party is directed to pay Rs.50,000/- within 30 days to the complainant failing which they will have to pay interest @ 9% per annum. The opposite party will also pay Rs.1,000/- towards cost of the expenses incurred. The complaint is closed ". Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, two appeals were filed before the State Commission. Appeal no. 2166 of 2010 was filed by respondent/complainant for enhancement and the second appeal no. 72 of 2011 was filed by the petitioner for setting aside the order of the District Forum. The State Commission "dismissed both the appeals with no order as to costs ".

HENCE , the present revision petition. Along with the revision petition, the petitioner has filed an application for condonation of delay of 29 days. As per the application, the certified copy of the impugned order was delivered by the State Commission on 22.10.2012. Thereafter it took some time for the petitioners to engage a lawyer in Delhi to file the revision petition. Moreover all the documents are in vernacular and it took considerable time to translate the same in English. All this exercise has taken some time and there was some unavoidable delay beyond their control. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the case. No cogent reasons have been given either by the counsel for the petitioner or in the application for condonation of delay to explain and justify the day to day delay of 29 days. It is well settled that "sufficient cause " for condoning the delay in each case is a question of fact: In Ram 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. "

Similarly, in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kailash Devi and Ors. AIR 1994 Punjab and Haryana 45, it has been laid down that; "There is no denying the fact that the expression sufficient cause should normally be construed liberally so as to advance substantial justice but that would be in a case where no negligence or inaction or want of bona fide is imputable to the applicant. The discretion to condone the delay is to be exercised judicially i.e. one of is not to be swayed by sympathy or benevolence. "

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. "

RECENTLY , Hon ''ble Supreme Court in Post Master General and others vs. Living Media India Ltd. and another (2012) 3 Supreme Court Cases 563 has held; "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 subserves public interest. Prompt and timely payment of compensation to the land losers 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 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. 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 ".

OBSERVATIONS made by Apex Court in the authoritative pronouncements discussed above are fully attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case. Even, after getting two adverse findings, petitioners have chosen not to settle the claim of the respondent but have dragged him to the highest Fora under the Act. It is not that every order passed by Fora below is to be challenged by a litigant even when the same are based on sound reasoning.

IT is a well-known fact that Courts across the country are saddled with large number of cases. Public Sector Undertakings indulgences further burden them. Time and again, Courts have been expressing their displeasure at the Government/Public Sector Undertakings compulsive litigation habit but a solution to this alarming trend is a distant dream. The judiciary is now imposing costs upon Government/Public Sector Undertaking not only when it pursue cases which can be avoided but also when it forces the public to do so. Public Sector Undertakings spent more money on contesting cases than the amount they might have to pay to the claimant. In addition thereto, precious time, effort and other resources go down the drain in vain. Public Sector Undertakings are possibly an apt example of being penny wise, pound-foolish. Rise in frivolous litigation is also due to the fact that Public Sector Undertakings though having large number of legal personnel under their employment, do not examine the cases properly and force poor litigants to approach the Court. The Apex Court, in the case State Bank of India vs B S Agricultural Industries II (2009) SLT - 793 = (2009) 5 SCC 121 have held as under: "As a matter of law, the Consumer Forum must deal with the complainant on merits only if the complaint has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action and if beyond the said period, the sufficient cause has been shown and delay condoned for the reasons recorded in writing. In other words, it is the duty of the Consumer Forum to take notice of section 24A and give effect to it. If the complaint is barred by time and yet the Consumer Forum decided the complaint on merits, the Forum would be committing an illegality and, therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside. "

The present case is fully covered under the case laws cited above Supra. The petitioners have failed to produce any detailed reasons to explain the delay of 29 days. Accordingly, no sufficient grounds are made out for condonation of delay of 29 days in filing the present revision petition. The application for condonation of delay under these circumstances is not maintainable and the present revision petition being barred by limitation is hereby dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only).

PETITIONER is directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- by way of demand draft directly in the name of respondent and the balance amount of Rs.5,000/- be deposit by way of demand draft in the name of "Consumer Legal Aid Account " of this Commission within four weeks from today. In case the petitioner fails to deposit the cost within the prescribed period, then it shall also be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum till its realisation. List for compliance on 20th September 2013.