UNION OF INDIA vs Krishna Kumar Mani Tiwari

THIS Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ''''the Act '''') has been preferred by the Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Telecommunication, New Delhi and the Superintendent of Post Offices, Deoria Division, Deoria, challenging the order, dated 05.09.2012, passed by the UP State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (for short ''''the State Commission '''') in Appeal No. 1241 of 2007, whereby the Appeal has been dismissed in default on account of non -appearance of their Counsel at the time of hearing. In Appeal before the State Commission, the Petitioners had questioned the legality of order dated 25.04.2007 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Deoria (for short ''''the District Forum '''') in Complaint No. 549 of 2006, inter alia, directing the Petitioners to pay to the Complainant, a sum of Rs.10,000/ - withheld by them along with a sum of Rs.70,000/ - towards interest, etc.

SHORN of unnecessary details, the material facts giving rise to the present Revision Petition are that while working as Assistant Cashier, Deoria Division Head Office, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the Complainant for alleged negligence on his part in not sealing the bag in which, an amount of Rs.15,000/ - was to be sent to another sub post office. For the said lapse a penalty of Rs.10,000/ - was imposed on him vide order dated 15.02.1990. The said amount was recovered from him on 04.11.1992. However, the said order was quashed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Allahabad Bench, by order dated 07.06.1996. Although the said order was accepted by the Petitioners, yet the said amount of Rs.10,000/ - recovered from him on 04.11.1992, by virtue of penalty order dated 15.02.1990, was not refunded. The Complainant superannuated on 31.01.2006. Even at the time of settlement of his dues on retirement, the aforesaid amount was not refunded to him. Having failed in all his attempts to get back the said amount, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioners, the Complainant filed the aforesaid Complaint. The Petitioners resisted the Complaint on the ground that : (i) the Complaint under the Act was not maintainable as he was not a ''''Consumer '''', (ii) having kept quiet for over ten years the Complaint was barred by limitation and (iii) the Complaint was defective as the Director, Postal Services was not impleaded as a party. However, the written statement filed on their behalf was silent in so far as the claim for refund of the said amount was concerned. On consideration of the pleadings and evidence on record, the District Forum accepted the Complaint and directed the Petitioners to pay to the Complainant the aforesaid amounts, along with a sum of Rs.10,000/ - as compensation for mental and physical agony and Rs.2,000/ - as litigation expenses. The Petitioners '' appeal having been dismissed, they are before us in this Revision Petition.

THE main ground on which the orders of the fora below are sought to be challenged is that in view of the decision of the Hon ''ble Supreme Court in JagmittarSain Bhagat & Ors. Vs. Director, Health Services, Haryana & Ors. (2013) 10 SCC 136, holding that a government servant cannot raise any dispute regarding his service conditions or for payment of gratuity or GPF or any of his retiral benefits before any of the Forums constituted under the Act, the District Forum committed a serious error of law in entertaining the Complaint and in issuing the afore -noted directions.

BEFORE considering the afore -noted issue, it would be necessary to dispose of the application filed by the Petitioners for condonation of delay of 324 days in filing the Revision Petition. In the supporting affidavit filed with the application, the explanation furnished for the delay is as under: - ''''3. That the Divisional Office vide its letter dated 10.04.2013 informed the Regional Office, Gorakhpur about the dismissal of appeal for non prosecution of parties. The copy of the said letter was also sent to Addl. Central Govt. Counsel at Lucknow for making efforts in respect of restoration of aforesaid order.

That as per information given by the then counsel, after vetting of affidavit in support of application for recalling the order dated 05.09.2012, the application for recall was preferred before the Hon ''ble State Commission. In the mean time, the complainant/ respondent initiated the execution proceeding and a counsel was contacted who advised to comply with the orders of learned D.C.F. dated 25.04.2007 passed in Consumer Case No. 549 of 2006. To avoid any adverse situation, the revisionists complied with the order and submitted a cheque of Rs.82,000/ - in DCF, Deoria on 25.06.2013. Thereafter, Tehsildar, Deoria again sent the recovery order of Rs.8,200/ - which was also deposited by the revisionists through cheque No. 729240 dated 11.07.2013. The amount has not till date, been released in favour of Respondent. 5. That simultaneously, the deponent was approaching the then counsel at Lucknow to get decided the recall application of order dated 05.09.2012 in favour of revisionists so that amount deposited in execution case may be recovered from the respondent. The counsel was written on 26.09.2013 and 15.10.2013 but no response was ever given by him. However, in spite of several efforts, the outcome of said recall application is not known nor apprised by the then counsel.

That the Post Master General again apprised vide letter dated 15.10.2013 about the status of execution case as well as compliance of original order of the DCF to satisfy the recovery issued by Tehsildar, Deoria.

That the P.M.G., Gorakhpur permitted the deponent to change the advocate in the State Commission, Lucknow and therefore another counsel was engaged to get decided alleged recall application who in turn advised vide letter dated 08.11.2013 that the State Commission does not have power to recall its own order and as such the recall application is not maintainable.

That the said opinion was sent to the Regional Office vide letter dated 09.11.2013 and 11.11.2013 for further instructions. The Regional Office vide its letter dated 13.12.2013 instructed to update latest status of case to forward the same to the Head of U.P. Circle. The deponent again vide letter dated 12.12.2013 replied to the Regional Office. In turn, the Regional Office summoned the competent officer of the Division who was well acquainted with the case.

Thatthe Regional Office vide its letter dated 28.01.2014 directed the deponent to file revision petition before the Hon ''ble NCDRC challenging the order of the State Commission. ''''

It is trite that the idea underlying the concept of limitation is that every remedy should remain alive only till the expiry of the period fixed by the legislature. At the same time, courts are bestowed with the power to condone the delay provided ''''sufficient cause '''' is shown by the applicant for not availing the remedy within the prescribed period of limitation. (See: Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation & Anr. (2010) 5 SCC 459. However, what colour the expression ''''sufficient cause '''' would get, depends on the factual matrix of a given case. It is equally well settled that the expression ''''sufficient cause '''' should be construed liberally so as to advance substantial justice. The principle to be kept in view while dealing with prayer for condonation of delay was succinctly stated by the Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 in the following words: - ''''Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. The law of limitation fixes a lifespan for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and wasted time would never revisit. During the efflux of time, newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So a lifespan must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. The law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim interest reipublicae up sit finis litium (it is for general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time. ''''

RECENTLY in Postmaster General and Ors. Vs. Living Media India Limited & Anr. (2012) 3 SCC 563, while declining to condone a delay of 427 days in filing Special Leave Petition by the Postal Department, the Supreme Court has observed as under: - ''''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 bona fide 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 the government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. ''''

IN AnshulAggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (2011) 14 SCC 578, while declining to condone a delay of 233 days in filing appeal against an order passed by this Commission, the Hon ''ble Supreme Court has observed that while deciding the application filed for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Act for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if the highly belated appeals and revisions are entertained. Bearing in mind these broad principles, we are of the opinion that the Petitioners have failed to make out ''''sufficient cause '''' for condonation of inordinate delay of 324 days. In the application, there is no indication as to how the Petitioners gained knowledge of the impugned order dated 05.09.2012. However, assuming, as pleaded, the order was brought to the notice of the Divisional Officer in the first week of March 2013, yet the said office took more than a month to forward the same to the Regional Officer at Gorakhpur. Furthermore, it is not stated as to when the application for recall of order dated 05.09.2012 was filed, although in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Rajeev Hitendra Pathak & Ors. Vs. Achyut Kashinath Karekar & Anr. (2011) 9 SCC 541, delivered as far back as August 2011, there was no point in filing such an application by the Petitioners who had the benefit of advice of senior law officers. It clearly shows a totally casual and indifferent attitude of the officials of the Petitioners in prosecuting the case. We are not satisfied with the explanation, extracted above, and therefore, we decline to condone the delay.

WE are conscious of the fact that in the light of the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in JagmittarSain ''s case (supra), strictly speaking, the Complaint under the Act was perhaps not maintainable but having regard to the quantum of the amount involved and the conduct of the Petitioners in not refunding an amount of Rs.10,000/ - to the Complainant since June 1996, when the penalty levied on him was quashed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, it would be travesty of justice to relegate the Complainant to approach an appropriate forum for refund of a sum of Rs.10,000/ - from the Petitioners, who have taken a year to challenge the order of the State Commission and almost 7 years in questioning the correctness of order passed by the District Forum, more so when in the written statement filed before the District Forum, the Petitioners had not contested the Complaint on the merits of the claim.

THEREFORE , having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case we are of the opinion that this is not a fit case for exercise of our revisionary jurisdiction. The Revision Petition is dismissed accordingly.