UNION OF INDIA vs Vikasdeep Sharma

REVISION petition no. 627 of 2013 has been filed against the order dated 30.07.2012 passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh ( ''the State Commission '') in appeal no. 237 of 2007. The brief facts of the case as per the respondent/complainant are that the respondent in relation to start the business of mobile repair and to buy things/ spare parts relating to mobile complaint had made reservation of his seat from Pathankot to Delhi with return ticket from Delhi to Pathankot. The respondent had made reservation of railway ticket from Pathankot for 12.12.2005 with return ticket of 14.12.2005. The respondent at the time of reservation asked the employee of the petitioner/complainant to make reservation of any train going to Delhi with return ticket with reservation and the petitioner issued a ticket of Jammu Mail and the train in which his seat was reserved in Jammu and reached Delhi in this train.

AFTER reaching Delhi the respondent bought many articles/ spare parts relating to mobile and the respondent also got repaired the two mobile set which he had bought from Jammu for repair. The respondent bought spare parts of mobile and other articles relating to worth Rs.31,930/- from T and S Telcom Pvt. Ltd. (a house of spare parts) and also bought other spare parts and articles relating to his business from other shops worth approximately Rs.15,000/-. After purchasing all these things at the time of starting his journey from Delhi, the respondent had in his bag spare parts of mobile worth Rs.31,930/- plus Rs.15,000/- as stated above, two mobile sets one his own (Nokia 6800) and other of Samsung which he had taken for repair and in his hand bag/ suitcase he has also bought two new sarees worth Rs.16,165/- which he had taken to show to her sister. The weight of the hand bag was approximately 25 to 30 kg. Before starting the journey the respondent has to suffer much at the hands of the employees of the petitioner at Delhi Railway Station due to wrong mentioning of the name of train on his reserved ticket and after making much effort he came to know about his train in which he has his reserved seat. The respondent also requested them to book his luggage but they refused to do so. The respondent then bought a chain and lock from the railway station and sat in the train on his reserved seat in reserved compartment. The respondent tied his bag to his reserved seat with chain and lock. During his journey at night time, the respondent slept on his reserved seat. At about 02.10 p m during night the respondent got up from his sleep. The respondent also woke up other passengers and enquired about the bag but to no avail. There was no TTE or any coach attended or any RPF constable present in the reserved compartment. The shutter of this compartment were also closed and it had no link with the other compartment. The respondent stopped the train by pulling the chain. The doors of the compartment remained open whole night and there was no coach attendant present whole night in the compartment to prevent the entry of unauthorized persons in the reserved compartment and to lock the compartments doors for security when train was in motion. Even there was no watch by TTE on the passengers entering and detraining from reserved coach/ compartment of complainant. During the entire night many unauthorised persons without reservations were also entering and detraining in the reserved compartment of the respondent and there was no one to stop them or to lock the doors of the compartment of the respondent at night. The bag of the respondent was stolen due to deficiency in services on the part of the petitioner and their employees. Even the constables came 10 minutes after pulling of the chain by the respondent in his compartment. The employees of petitioner had no form to write a complaint regarding theft of respondent ''s luggage/ hand bag and due to this respondent had to break his journey at Bhogpur and then went to Jalandhar and filed the complaint regarding the theft of his luggage/ hand bag. The respondent also sent an application to DRM Northern Railway in this regard to take action and to compensate him but of no avail. The respondent had paid Rs.11,000/- to a customer for mobile he had carried for repair. The articles and other things as stated below worth Rs.81,795/- was present in the luggage/ hand bag when it was stolen. The details are as under: (i) Mobile spare parts Rs.31,930/- +15,000/- (ii) One Mobile Nokia Rs.7700/- (iii) One Samsung Mobile Rs.11,000/- (iv) Two Sarees Rs.16,165/- Rs.81,795/-

Petitioner/ opposite party denied the complaint stating that the name of train had been correctly mentioned on the ticket issued by the computer itself "Jammu Mail " from Pathankot to Delhi and Delhi to Pathankot for the required dates and nothing was written by hand. The hand bag weighing approximately 25 kgs to 30 kgs was not required to be booked as the passenger can keep upto 40 kgs of luggage with him during travelling. The passenger be fully responsible for keeping vigilant watch on his belongings, during journey time, especially, during night hours. It is pertinent to mention here that RPF staff was duly available during duty hours in the nominated coaches. The respondent has not informed TTE staff on duty Ex-Ludhiana - Pathankot qua theft. The petitioner had not received copy of complaint filed at Jallandhar along with copy of this complaint. The rest of the contents of this paragraph of the complaint are totally wrong hence denied.

THE District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurdaspur (the ''District Forum '') while allowing the complaint directed the "opposite party/ petitioner there being merit in the complaint, the same is hereby allowed and opposite party is directed to pay Rs.81,795/- to the respondent/complainant within one month from the date of receipt of order of this Forum failing which the complainant shall entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of order of this Forum till the recovery of the whole amount ".

AGGRIEVED by the order of the District Forum the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission vide their order dated 30.07.2012 has observed as under: "In view of the above discussion and the law laid down, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed and the impugned order under appeal dated 05.12.2006 passed by the District Forum is affirmed and upheld. No order as to cost ".

Hence, the present revision petition. Along with the revision petition an application has been filed for condonation of delay. Number of days of delay have not been mentioned in the application for condonation of delay. However, as per the office report, there is a delay of 99 days in filing the present revision petition. The reasons for the delay as mentioned in the application are as under:

THE order of the State Commission was reserved on 24.07.2012 and passed on 30.07.2012 and allegedly communicated to the parties. However, it was issued to the petitioner only on 13.08.2012 by post and received on ________. Thereafter, the decision was taken to file a revision petition before this Commission and a Railway Lawyer was engaged in Delhi. It took some time to do the entire exercise. The Railway Counsel also took time to study and draft the revision petition. In the last week of December, the courts were closed and ultimately the revision petition was sent to Ferozpur for signature and could be filed only in January 2013 ". The facts given by the petitioner are extremely sketchy. No dates have been given after the receipt of the order on 13.08.2011. It would appear that the petitioner just took their time in dealing with the matter in a most casual and careless manner. The petitioner has failed to give day to day explanation for the delay of 99 days. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also 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 the day to day delay of 99 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 petitioner has failed to produce any detailed reasons to explain the delay. Accordingly, no sufficient grounds are made out for condonation of delay of 99 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.