AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Kawoosa, J.—This application for condonation of delay relates to the Civil 1st Miscellaneous Appeal No. 348/97 tiled by the applicant,
New India Assurance Company Ltd. against an order passed by the J. and K. State Consumers Protection Commission, Srinagar. It may be
worthwhile to mention here that the presentation note endorsed on the appeal show that the appeal was presented before the Registry on 23-9-
1997. This application for condonation has been filed on 6-10-1997.
In the application, it is staled that the appeal was actually presented before the Receipt Counter of the Registry of this Court on 22-9-1997 at 3
p.m. However, owing to the non-availability of the Counter Clerk, the concerned Sectional Officer could not record the presentation on that day.
The Clerk who presented the appeal on behalf of the Appellant before the Counter was given to understand that the date of presentation on the
appeal would be recorded as 22-9-1997. Thereafter, it was only on 4th October, 1997 that the counsel for the appellant came to know that the
date of presentation of the appeal had been shown as 23-9-1997 and not as 22-9-1997. Therefore, he filed this application on 6-10-1997 by way
of caution as, according to the applicant-appellant, the period which was stipulated by the Commission for collecting of certified copy of the order
impugned, has to be excluded from the period of limitation.
The respondents has contested this application by way of filing objections. In the objections, the respondent has stated that the period of
limitation of 30 days for filing the appeal will run from the date of the order i.e. 21-8-1997. Since the appeal has been presented before the Court
on 23-9-1997, it is barred by time, having been filed two days beyond the period of limitation.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Kanna in person.
The point involved here is; for reckoning the period of limitation of 30 days, whether the relevant date would be the date of announcement of the
order or the date of communication of certified copy of the order to the parties. In order to adjudicate upon and return a finding on the point, it
would be appropriate to refer to the provisions of the J. and K. Consumer Protection Act and the Rules framed thereunder. But before doing that,
it needs to be mentioned here that the Commission has adopted a practice of providing a time limit in its orders itself for communication and supply
of certified copies of its final orders to the parties free of cost. In that context para No. 4 of the order impugned in the instant case assumes
importance and is quoted hereinbelow :-
A certified copy of this order be given to the parties to be collected by them on their own within a period of one week.
It would thus be seen that a time limit, up to the maximum of seven days, has been provided by the Commission itself for communication and
collection of certified copy of the order by the appellant. It would be again relevant to mention here that the Copying Rules governing the
procedure for application, preparation and issuance of certified copies of orders and judgments in the Civil Courts are not applicable to the
Consumer Protection Fora. In order to find out the mechanism and procedure provided under the relevant law on the subject, it would, therefore,
be necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Consumer Protection Act, 1987 and the Rules framed thereunder :-
Chapter III, Section 7 of the Act provides for establishment of, Consumer Disputes Redressal Agencies. Section 7(a) provides for establishment
of a Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum to be known as the 'Divisional Forum' in each division of the State and Section 7(b) provides for
establishment of a Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to be known as the 'State Commission' at the State level. The two aforesaid fora
have jurisdiction to hear complaints depending upon the value of the goods or services and compensation claimed in the complaints. The State
Commission, in addition to the original jurisdiction to hear the complaints, has also an appellate jurisdiction over the orders and judgments of the
Divisional Fora. Procedure for the transaction of business in both the fora is the same. We are here only on the limitation point. Section 13 of the
Act deals with the appeals against the orders of Divisional Forum. It reads as under:-
Appeal. Any person aggrieved by an order made by the Divisional Forum may prefer an appeal against such order to the State Commission
within a period of thirty days from the dale of the order in such form and manner as may be prescribed.
Provided that the State Commission may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient
cause for not filing it within that period.
Section 17 of the Act deals with the appeals against the orders passed by the State Government, it reads as under :-
Appeals. Any person aggrieved by any order by the State Commission in exercise of its power conferred by sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of
Section 15 may prefer an appeal against such order to the High Court within a period of thirty days from the date of the order in such form and
manner as may be prescribed ;
Provided that the High Court may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause
for not filing it within that period.
In both the provisions aforesaid, period of 30 days has been prescribed for preferring an appeal from orders of Divisional Forum to the State
Commission and from orders of State Commission to the High Court. The form and manner to be employed for preferring such appeals has been
stated to be prescribed by the Government. Such Rules have been framed by the Government u/s 24 of the J. and K. Consumer Protection Act,
1987 in terms of J. and K. Consumer Protection Rules, 1987. Rule 10 of the aforesaid Rules prescribes the procedure of hearing the appeals.
Sub-rule (ix) of Rule 10 of the aforesaid Rules reads as under :-
The order of the State Commission on appeal shall be signed and dated by the Members of the State Commission and shall be communicated to
the parties free of charge.
The aforesaid provision of law makes it clear that the orders passed by the State Commission on appeals shall be communicated to the parties free
of charge. However, there is no such provision prescribed either in the Act or the Rules framed thereunder in relation to the orders passed by the
two fora on complaints filed before them. There is no system of copying branch available either in the Divisional Forum or in the State Commission.
The mandatory requirement, as provided under Sub-rule (ix) of Rule 10 of the Rules, it appears, has been and is being adopted by the two fora
with respect to the orders passed by them on complaints as well. They have been communicating the copies of orders to the parties free of charge
and the time for communication and collection of such orders by the parties is being prescribed by the Fora in the orders itself. Rule 10(ix) of the
Rules has been made applicable only to appeals filed before the State Commission. This appears to be a legislative omission, because in other
States, such as, Haryana, this provision has been made applicable to the orders passed by such fora on complaints as well. However, as
mentioned above, notwithstanding the legislative omission, both the fora have been adopting the procedure of communicating the certified copies of
the orders to the parties free of charge to be collected by them on their own within a time limit stipulated by the forum or the commission, as the
case may be. That is why, in every order both the fora normally give seven day's time to the parties to collect copies of orders free of charge.
Every memorandum of appeal, according to the Rules, has to be accompanied by the certified copy of the order appealed against. Once the
certified copy is not signed or prepared and communicated or supplied to an aggrieved person, it becomes impracticable for him to present the
memorandum of appeal before the Appellate forum, be it the State Commission or this Court. That being so, appeal cannot be presented unless it
is accompanied by a certified copy of the order. Since there is no copying facility and procedure available in the two fora below, therefore, the
Divisional Forum and the State Commission have rightly been adopting the mandatory requirements prescribed for signing, dating and
communication of the orders passed by State Commission on appeals under Sub-rule (ix) of Rule 10 of the Rules.
For the foregoing reasons, therefore, it is, but natural that, the time of 30 days allowed by the Act for presenting an appeal u/s 17 of the Act
should reckon from the date of communication of the order to the party concerned and not from the date the order is announced, or, in the
alternative, it should run from the date of expiry of the time allowed by the Forum or the Commission, as the case may be, for supply and collection
of such copy of order by the party concerned. If the appeal is presented within thirty days from the date of expiry of the time allowed by the
Forum or the Commission, as the case may be, for collection of such order, or within thirty days from the date the copy of order is supplied to the
party concerned in pursuance of the directions of the Forum or the Commission, as the case may be, the question of condoning the delay in such
an eventuality would not arise. However, where an appeal is presented thirty days after the expiry of the time allowed by the Forum or the
Commission for collection of such order, or thirty days after the date of collection of copy of such order, the appeal shall have to be accompanied
by an application for condonation of delay setting forth the reasons for the delay caused in preferring the appeal. It is true that law has to be
interpreted as it exists on the books of statute, but keeping in view the fact that the Act is a special legislation meant to provide for the better
protection of the interests of consumers i.e. the society at large coupled with the fact that law on the subject is still at its threshold and is yet to
develop as other laws have been subject of debates in all the Courts through out the country since many decades, therefore, the matters arising out
of such law, as the instant one, need to be dealt with keeping in view the broader interests of the society at large.
Almost a similar point had come before the Apex Court in Housing Board, Haryana Vs. Housing Board Colony Welfare Association and
others, . The facts of the aforesaid case are approximately similar to the present one. The only difference is that in the case (supra) the matter
related to an appeal filed before the State Commission against the order of Divisional Forum. In the Haryama Consumer Protection Act, Section
15 deals with the appeals and period of limitation for filing such appeals. The provision of law i.e. Section 15 is pari meteria to Section 17 of the J.
and K. Consumer Protection Act. In the case (supra) order was announced by the Forum on 22nd October, 1992 in the open Court. After
pronouncing the order. Presiding Officer proceeded on leave and the President had not signed the order. On resuming his duties, he signed the
order and the certified copy of it was attested on 30-10-1992. 29-11-1992 was a Sunday. Appeal before the State Commission was filed on 30-
11-1992. Rule 10(4) of the Haryana Consumer Protection Rules provided that the Orders of the District Forum shall be signed and dated by the
members of the District Forum constituting the Bench and shall be communicated to the parties free of charge. Copy of the order was furnished to
the appellant on 30-10-1992. So the plea was whether the date of order should be date for reckoning the period of limitation or the date of its
communication. It may be mentioned here that in this case also by way of abundant caution, an application for condoning the delay was filed. The
Apex Court held at page 94 (of AIR) :-
Section 15 cannot be read in isolation but it has to be read along with Rules 4(10) and 8(3) of the Rules and a combined reading of Section 15
and the Rules gives an impression that the purpose, object and intention of these statutory provisions is to protect the interest of the parties before
the District Forum by making it obligatory on the District Forum to provide a copy of the order duly signed and dated by the members of the
Bench , and the period of limitation prescribed with regard to the filing of an appeal shall be computed as commencing from the date of
communication of the order in the manner laid down in Sub-rule (10) of Rule 4.
The Apex Court further observed and held as under:-
. . . .From these facts it is abundantly clear that the copies were duly signed and dated by the members of the Forum on 30-10-1992. That being
so the period of limitation in view of the above discussion will commence from the date on which the copies of the order were ready and made
available i.e. 30-10-1992. In the present case the appeals were filed before the State Commission on 30-11-1992 and since 29-11-1992 was
Sunday, the appeals were prima facie within lime. In these facts and circumstances there was no question, of making any application for
condonation of delay in filing the appeals as there was no delay at all,
(underlining supplied)
Aforesaid is the principle laid down by the Apex Court that the period of limitation has to be counted from the date the copy is furnished to the
party concerned and that there was no need of filing an application for condonation of delay, since the appeal was within time. There is no doubt
about the fact that we do not have any provision in the Rules made under the Act, pari meterial to Rule 4(1) of Haryana Consumer Protection
Rules providing for communication of orders to the parties free of charge on the original side. Such a provision has been provided only in relation
to the orders passed by, the State Commission on appeals in our State. But at the same time the Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the Act
and Rules do not provide any procedure for supply and communication or collection of copies of such orders by the concerned parties. Therefore,
the practice being adopted by the Divisional Forum and the State Commission with regard to the direction for supply to and collection by the
parties of the orders passed by them respectively has to be held to be the right procedure. This is in consonance with the law laid down by the
Apex Court and the spirit of the special legislation.
In view of the above, it is held that the period of limitation of 30 days provided for presenting appeals either before the State Commission or
this Court shall run from the date copy of the order is communicated or collected, as the case may be, by the party concerned, or where the copy
of such order is not collected within the time allowed by the Forum or the Commission, from the date of expiry of such period allowed by the
Forum or the Commission, as the case may be.
Now coming to the present case, the order impugned has been announced by the State Commission on 21 st August, 1997. Seven days' time
has been given to parties to obtain certified copies of the order free of charge. Copy of the impugned order placed on record of the file reveals that
it was signed by the President on 3-9-1997. However, the date appears to have been interpolated. Be that as it may, appeal has been presented
before the Registry on 23rd of September, 1997. Since the date given on the certified copy seems to be a tampered one therefore, it would not be
safe to take this date into account. That being so, counting the period of limitation from the date of expiry of one week allowed by the Commission
for collection of copy of the order i.e. 28-8-1997, the appeal had to be presented before 28-9-1997. Since it has been presented before the
Registry on 23-9-1997, therefore, it is held that the appeal has been filed within the time. Therefore, there was no question of filing of the present
application for condonation of delay. The appeal is held to have been filed within time.
Registry is directed to register the appeal and list it for admission week after next.
However, while parting with the file, it needs to be mentioned that the date of signing of the order by the President of the State Commission,
placed on record of the appeal, seems to have been tampered with. Registrar Judicial is directed to send a photo copy of this order to the State
Commission to ascertain whether the date has been tampered with or not. Report thereabout shall be placed before the Court, as and when it is
received.