Jagatrai Pangi vs Chief Construction Engineer & 2 Ors

C. Viswanath, J

The present Revision Petition is filed by the Petitioner under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Odisha, Cuttack (hereinafter referred to as the "State Commission") in Appeal No. 519 of 2017 dated 24.08.2018.

In the Complaint case, it was stated that Petitioner along with his family were the original inhabitants of Village Godiput, Koraput District, Orissa and were evicted from the village for the purpose of Upper Kolab Project.They lost their house and agricultural land situated in the Village/Mouza Gumalput which was recorded in the name of Sukra Pangi i.e. the father of the Petitioner. As the village was submerged partly, the Petitioner along with his family were displaced and paid compensation. The Petitioner, however, alleged that the Compensation paid was not assessed under any standard uniform principle. Thus, the Complaint was filed.

Respondent No.2 and 3 contended that LAO had acquired the land for the project as per LLA 1894 and all the displaced whose homestead and residential houses were affected by acquisition were compensated as per the R.R. Polocy of Govt. of Odisha. They were declared as displaced persons and were provided with R & R assistance. Persons who lost only their agricultural land were paid compensation only for land acquisition. Hence, Respondents prayed for dismissal of Complaint with costs.

The District Forum, vide order dated 30.12.2016, directed the Respondents to pay a Solatium of 30% on the amount of compensationpaid to the Petitioner /displaced and affected persons and 12% for the deferred period of notice under 4(1) and award under Section 11 and 12 of the Land Acquisition Act with 9% simple interest calculated from the date of displacement till the date of the order. The Respondents were further directed to pay cost of the Complaint Rs.1 Lakh as compensation for their negligence and arbitrariness in discharging their service throughout the process of rehabilitation alongwith cost of Rs.3,000/-. The aforesaid directions were to be complied within 90 days of receipt of the order, unless which a further interest of 12% per annum shall be charged against the amount in order as above.

Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the Respondents filed an Appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission, vide order dated 24.08.2018, allowed the Appeal of the Respondents and set-aside the order passed by the District Forum on the ground that the Complaint was barred by limitation and the order passed was without jurisdiction.

Being aggrieved by the order passed by the State Commission, the Petitioner filed the present Revision Petition before this Commission.

Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. I have carefully gone through the record.

As per the office report, there is a delay of 106 days in filing the present Revision Petition. The Petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay which it was stated that the Revision Petition was filed before the Commission was within the period of limitation. This Commission issued a letter on 22.11.2018 to cure some defects in the present Revision Petition and it was received by the Authorized Agent on 06.12.2018. The Authorized Agent did not communicate the letter showing defects, due to his old age and ill health. On 21st February, 2019, the Petitioner came to know about the letter issued by this Commission to cure the defects in the Revision Petition and thereupon he contacted the present Advocate who was handling his case. He, therefore, requested to condone the delay in filing the present Revision Petition. Defects have not been cured even to this day and no sufficient cause has been shown for condonation of delay of 106 days.

Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority" [2012(2) CPC (SC)] observed as under:

"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 the 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."

In "R. B. Ramalingam Vs. R. B Bhavaneshwari, 2009 (2) Scale 108", the Apex Court has observed thus:

"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."

In "Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361", it has been observed:-

"It is, however, necessary to emphasise 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 condition precedent for the exercise of the 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."

As can be seen from the order of the State Commission, the Appeal of the Respondents was allowed and order passed by the District Forum was set aside on the ground that the Complaint was barred by limitation and order was without jurisdiction as the Petitioner had not filed any application for condonation of delay.Though an application for condonation of delay has been filed before this Commission, no sufficient and justified grounds and reasons have been adduced.Delay of 106 days has not been adequately and satisfactorily explained by the Petitioner.

In view of the above, the present Revision Petition is dismissed on the ground of delay of 106 days in filing the said Revision Petition.