UTTAR PRADESH Power Corporation Ltd vs Urmila Devi

-THE appellant was the opposite party before the State Commission respondent/complainant had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant.

VERY briefly stated the facts leading to filing the complaint were that on 29th April 2000, high-tension wire belonging to the appellant had falled on low-tension wire at the residence of the respondent/complainant, as a result of which the husband of the complainant, Mr. Anand Mani Tripathi, died due to electric shock. The appellant offered Rs. 20,000 to the complainant which was not acceptable to them. It is in these circumstances a complaint claiming Rs. 30 lakh as compensation was filed before the State Commission. The matter was contested before the State Commission by the appellants, who after detailed inquiry and hearing the parties, directed the appellant to pay Rs. 2 lakh as compensation. This order was passed on 24th Aug. 2006 against which this appeal has been filed on 22nd January, 2008. As per the details worked out by this Commission, there is delay of 443 days in filing this appeal.

I have gone through the application for condonation of delay as also heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. Two grounds have been taken explaining the delay. Firstly, the copy of the order was issued to the learned Counsel for the appellant on 6. 10. 2006, who, in turn, informed the appellant department on 16. 10. 2006 and the papers were given to one Mr. R. K. Singh, Office Assistant, to contact the Counsel in Delhi for filing the appeal. He fell ill and, unfortunately, expired on 23. 12. 2006. By February, 2007, the papers were retrieved but certain documents were missing, hence by May 2007, they were handed over to the Counsel at Delhi. Unfortunately there was road accident in the family of the Counsel, as a result of which there was further delay of 25 days as the Counsel was in Mumbai. The second leg of the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that in spite of his best efforts, he could not get Rs. 35,000 to be deposited at the time of filing of appeal as it involved long procedure. The appellant wrote a letter on 31st July, 2007 for sanction of this amount and reminded on 11th October, 2007 and 19th November, 2007. Finally, by 1st January, 2008, this amount was received by the Counsel, after which, within 20 days this appeal was filed.

AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for the appellant, it is very difficult to appreciate, after recovering the documents from expired R. K. Singh as also having taken care of the family member involved in the accident by the Counsel in Mumbai, which was over by June 2007, and even though by that time, the limitation for filing the appeal has expired, yet the Counsel took further two months, i. e. by 31st July, 2007, for sanction of amount of Rs. 35,000 which was to be deposited in filing the appeal. As per application for condonation of delay, the appellant was reminded on 11th October, 2007 and 19th November, 2007, yet the appellant took its own time and sent the DD on 1st January, 2008. This is certainly most unsatisfactory and totally unacceptable ground for condoning the delay and can by no stretch of imagination be said to be sufficient ground to condone the delay. It is well settled by now that there are no special provisions with regard to limitation for filing complaint/appeals, for a Government Departments where lengthy process is alleged to be involved. There could be delay of few days or few weeks but in this case, there is delay of over on year. We may however appreciate delay upto June 2007, but after June 2007 the delay is unacceptable and in my opinion, application does not sufficiently explain the delay caused by the appellant and the reasons advanced to explain the delay cannot be found as sufficient, especially when a valuable right has accrued to the consumer, who is spitted against the might of the State Authority.

IN the aforementioned circumstances, I see that condonation of delay has not been sufficiently explained in view of which, this appeal is dismissed as barred by limitation. There shall be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.