DHBVNL vs Rajbeer Singh

Dr. S. M. Kantikar, J

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the material on record.

This revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the Order dated 20.02.2018 passed in first appeal No. 1233 of 2016 by Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (for short, 'the State Commission') whereby the State Commission dismissed the appeal as being barred by time:

"- - -

Taking into consideration, the plea raised by the appellant in the application for condonation of delay and the settled principle of law, we do not find it a fit case to condone the delay of 632 days in filing the appeal. Hence, application filed for condonation of delay is dismissed.

Resultantly, this appeal is hereby dismissed as time barred.

The opposite party-appellant is directed to fix the responsibility to the concerned official, who was responsible for delay and loss suffered by the department and the same be recovered from the concerned employee as per opinion of Hon'ble Supreme Court expressed in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation reported in (2010) 5 SCC 459 and Lucknow Development Authority vs. M. K. Gupta, AIR 1994 SC 787.

The statutory amount of Rs.4,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

- - -"

There is admitted delay of 227 days in filing the instant revision petition before this Commission. An application for condonation of delay has been filed. The stated reasons for delay in filing the revision petition, as mentioned in paras 2 and 3 of the application, are as below:

"2. That in order to file the appeal against the impugned order, the matter was to be dealt with at various stages and gad to pass through various hands and various departments of the Petitioner. Due to this reason, the appeal could not be filed in time otherwise there was no occasion for the Petitioner to allow the period of limitation to expire.

That the appeal is likely to succeed on the grounds being taken therein and would be rendered infructuous if the delay of 227 days in filing the appeal is not condoned. The delay in filing the appeal is bonafide and not intentional and has been caused inadvertently due to long official procedure."

We note that the stated reasons for delay like "That in order to file the appeal against the impugned order, the matter was to be dealt with at various stages and gad to pass through various hands and various departments of the Petitioner. Due to this reason, the appeal could not be filed in time otherwise there was no occasion for the Petitioner to allow the period of limitation to expire."; and "That the appeal is likely to succeed on the grounds being taken therein and would be rendered infructuous if the delay is 227 days in filing the appeal is not condoned. The delay in filing the appeal is bonafide and not intentional and has been caused inadvertently due to long official procedure." are illogical and absurd in explaining convincingly and cogently the day-to-day delay in filing the revision petition.

No just or sufficient cause to explain the delay within the meaning of section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 is visible.

We however want to also satisfy ourselves that there would be no miscarriage of justice if the delay is not condoned. We find that the State Commission had dismissed the appeal on limitation. The District Forum had directed the OP to provide electricity at the complainant's house and to issue electricity bills by rectifying his account on the basis of minimum rate basis without any penalty or surcharge; compensation (Rs.5,000/-) and cost of litigation (Rs.3,000/-). Without attempting to examine or adjudicate on the Orders of the State Commission or the District Forum on merit, we but do not find any reason visible to convince us that there would be any miscarriage of justice if the delay is not condoned.

The application for condonation of delay being unconvincing and devoid of merit is dismissed. Resultantly the revision petition is dismissed on limitation.

Needless to add that the District Forum shall proceed with execution as per the law.