C. K. Mohanasundaran v K. U. Gopalakrishnan Nair S/o Ramunni Nambiar

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

NEW DELHI BENCH

7 May 2013

Bench

Rekha Gupta (Member), V. B. Gupta (Presiding Member)

Revision Petition No. 2698 of 2011

The Judgment was delivered by : Rekha Gupta (Member)

1. Revision petition no. 2698 of 2011 has been filed against the order dated 18.02.2011in Appeal no. 230 of 2010 filed before the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananathapuram (‘the State Commission’).

2. The respondent/complainant had approached the District Forum against the refusal of the petitioner/ opposite party to issue possession certificate of plot nos. 127/2 and 140/2 Tirurangadi Village and Thrikkulam Desam,for availing the benefits from the Agriculture Department. Even though, the same have been issued in 2003 and 2006 regarding RS no. 127/2. The only reason for the same according to the respondent was non-payment of Rs.200/- demanded by the petitioner/opposite party. As a result, the complainant did not get the benefits from the Agriculture Department on account of non-receipt of possession certificate.

3. The petitioner in his defence has stated that “the possession certificate was issued in 2003-2006 it would have been issued only after due verification of the property by the concerned official. The allegation that the application dated 13.03.2008 is rejected and is incorrect. Except for the property for which there was difference in the survey number, the possession certificate is issued. For the property regarding which doubts arose, inspection is necessary and the complainant was requested to show the property in the afternoon of 13.03.2008. The complainant objected to the same and stated that the property regarding which doubts where there could be excluded and possession certificate regarding the other property need alone be furnished. The allegation that Rs.200/- was demanded as bribe is false. The same is stated for the purpose of the above complaint”.

3. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mallapuram (‘the District Forum’) were of the view that “the redressal of one consumer complaint like the present one will not only be a remedy to the complainant, but will serve as a message to the public servants to improve their quality of service and be more consumer sensitive. Consumers seldom come forward to voice for their rights fearing, the time and money taken for the cumbersome process of litigation. Public servants rendering public service are expected to be service oriented and behave in a civilised manner with fellow citizens particularly senior citizens. The nation honors the senior citizens by allowing them various benefits and privileges. It is rather shameful that a senior citizen like the complainant had to suffer such ordeal at the hands of a public servant. We consider that an amount of Rs.8,000/- together with costs of Rs.1,500/- would meet the ends of justice.

4. In the result, we allow the complaint and order that opposite party shall pay to the complainants an amount of Rs.8,000/- as compensation along with costs of Rs.1,500/- within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order”.

5. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner had filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission had dismissed his appeal. Hence, the present revision petition. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The respondent is already ex parte. The revision petition has been filed with a delay of 54 days. The State Commission passed its order on 18.02.2011 and the revision petition was filed on 10.08.2011. The application for condonation of delay only states as follows:

“For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit it is prayed that the Hon’ble National Commission be pleased to condone the delay of 50 days in filing the above revision petition” .

In the affidavit dated 24.02.2012 submitted by the petitioner he has given the following reasons:

“In the revision petition filed I had stated that the certified copy of the impugned judgment was received by me on 12.06.2011, and that the above revision petition is being filed within the period of limitation. The certified copy of the order was forwarded to me by the Advocate clerk attached to the office of my counsel, Trivandrum. As the registry has raised a query regarding limitation, I had made enquiries with my counsel and it is now learnt that the certified copy of the impugned order was served on the counsel on 23.03.2011, and the same entrusted to the advocate clerk to be sent to me. The advocate clerk on account of an inadvertent oversight omitted to forward the said order in time and the same was sent to me later and I had received it on 12.06.2011. On being contacted he said he was under the impression that a copy of the impugned order would be forwarded to me directly from the State Commission as was the normal procedure. Thereafter, I had applied for and obtained a certificate from the Hon’ble State Commission regarding the service of the certified copy of the impugned judgment and a certificate dated 14.02.2012 issued to me.

The above revision petition ought to have filed on or before 21.06.2011 as the copy of the impugned order was served on the counsel on 23.03.2011. As per the normal procedure it is known that the copy of the order ought to have been served to the parties directly. The above revision petition was filed only on 10.08.2011 under the bonafide belief that the same need only be filed within 90 days of 12.06.2011. Thus there occurred a delay of 50 days in filing the above revision petition. The said delay is not wilful or deliberate, but was caused and occasioned on account of the circumstances aforementioned. I have very serious contentions in the above matter. If the said delay of 50 days in filing the above revision petition is not condoned and an opportunity afforded to me to submit my case and contentions in the above matter. I will be put to irreparable loss, injury and hardship, besides the ends of justice would also be defeated.

It is apparent from the affidavit as also the certificate given by the Secretary and Registrar of the State Commission that the judgment copy dated 08.12.2011 had been served to Ms Renu, counsel for the appellant on 23.03.2011. In his affidavit, the petitioner has admitted that “as the registry has raised a query regarding limitation, I had made enquiries with my counsel and it is now learnt that the certified copy of the impugned order was served on the counsel on 23.03.2011, and the same entrusted to the advocate clerk to be sent to me. The advocate clerk on account of an inadvertent oversight omitted to forward the said order in time and the same was sent to me later and I had received it on 12.06.2011” .

8. As per the office report, there is a delay of 54 days. The petitioner has failed to give detailed justification to constitute “sufficient cause” for the delay. He has not explained his failure to follow-up the matter after the order was passed on 18.02.2011. Even after receiving the said order on 12.06.2011, the revision petition was filed on 10th August 2011 after almost two months.

6. It is well settled that ‘sufficient cause’ for condoning the delay in each case is a question of fact.

7. The apex court in the case of In Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), it has been held 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” .

8. Recently, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Post Master General and others vs. Living Media India Ltd. and another (2012) 3 Supreme Court Cases 5632012 Indlaw SC 55 has held;

9. 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.

12. 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 u/s. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. 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.

16. 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” .

10. Observations made by Apex Court in the authoritative pronouncements discussed above are fully attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. In view of the foregoing, the application for condonation of delay is rejected and the revision petition is dismissed as barred by limitation with no order as to cost.

Revision petition dismissed