Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd vs Mohinder Kaur Through Lrs

The dispute relates to 2013, we are in 2018.

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist - PSPCL, and perused the material on record.

I.A. no. 690 of 2018 is an application for 'setting aside ex parte order dated 24.09.2018', in effect an application for restoration.

This revision has been filed against the concurrent findings of the District Forum and the State Commission with self - admitted delay of 35 days (the Registry, however, has computed the delay to be 66 days).

It was first taken up on 12.10.2017, when notice was issued and the operation of the impugned Order of the State Commission was stayed till the next date of hearing (06.04.2018). On 06.04.2018, none was present for the revisionist and the matter was adjourned to 24.09.2018 for final hearing at admission stage. On 24.09.2018, again none was present for the revisionist and vide Order dated 24.09.2018 the revision petition was dismissed for lack of prosecution.

The Order dated 24.09.2018 is self-contained and self-speaking, and reads as below:

"The complaint had been allowed by the District Forum vide its Order dated 07.10.2013. The appeal had been dismissed by the State Commission vide its Order dated 28.02.2017.

Today, the petitioner/ Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., is not present. We also notice that on the last date also i.e. 6.4.2018, the petitioner was not present. The respondent was present in person on the last date and he is again present today also.

The revision petition is dismissed for lack of prosecution.

Let a copy of this Order be sent by the Registry to the District Forum within 10 days.

A copy of this Order be also sent to the Chief Executive of the petitioner Corporation within 10 days by the Registry.

We make it clear that there is no restriction on execution proceedings as per the law, both under section 25 for enforcement and under section 27 for penalty / punishment under the Act 1986.

'Dasti' in addition."

To settle the matter, the application for restoration is allowed and the revision petition is restored to its original number, subject to payment of just and appropriate cost of Rs.25,000/- in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of the District Forum within four weeks.

The District Forum vide its Order dated 07.10.2013 had partly accepted the complaint:

In view of our above observations and findings, the complaint filed by complainant is partly accepted with a direction to the OP to release the tubewell connection to the complainant alongwith compensation and litigation costs quantified as Rs.10,000/- within a period of 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order failing which OPs shall be liable to pay interest @9% per annum on the aforesaid amount from the date of order till realization. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room.

The State Commission vide its Order dated 28.02.2017 had dismissed the appeal:

In view of our above discussion, the appeal filed by the appellants/opposite parties is dismissed with Rs.2,000/-, as costs and the order passed by the District Forum is upheld. The amount of costs shall be deposited by the opposite parties in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission within 30 days of the receipt of certified copy of the order, failing which the same shall be recovered from the opposite parties as land revenue by the registry of this Commission.

The revision has been filed with admitted delay of 35 days.

The stated reasons for delay in filing the revision, as mentioned in paras 3 to 10 of the application for condonation of delay, are as below:

The State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh while upholding the order of the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Hoshiarpur vide which the petitioner is directed to release the tubewell connection along with costs to be deposited within 30 days of the receipt of certified copy of the order dated 28/02/2017.

The certified copy of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh was received by the Department only on 05.04.2017.

Subsequently, this was forwarded to the Legal Advisor, PSPCL, Patiala for its opinion. The head office returned the file to Hoshiarpur office somewhere in May - June 2017. After receiving the file the office approached the Advocate General, Punjab for recommending the name of an Advocate for the list of panel advocates.

That on 11/07/2017, the name of the Advocate was recommended and the present counsel was engaged.

However, subsequently it was discovered that the record of the State Dispute Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh (except the order) were not with the Department. The Appellant then filed an application asking for the record. The same was received by the Department only on 11/08/2017. The same was forwarded to the counsel by 15/08/2017.

The counsel for the Appellant was thereafter travelling till 25/08/2017. Subsequently, the Appellant could not travel to Delhi for handing over of the signed and verified the appeal due to the state of affairs as a result of Ram Rahim's conviction.

It is only on this date the Appellant could handover the signed and verified copy of the pleadings, applications and it annexures.

That the delay has occurred due to circumstances beyond the control of the Appellant. The delay was neither intentional not willful and occurred only due to bonafide reasons as explained above.

The Act 1986 is to provide speedy and simple redressal to consumer disputes (Statement of Objects and Reasons).

It is noted that the period of limitation to file revision petition is 90 days (Regulation 14(1)(i) of the Regulations 2005).

This revision petition has been filed with (further) admitted delay of 35 days.

It is also noted that the stated reasons for delay "- - - The State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh while upholding the order of the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Hoshiarpur vide which the petitioner is directed to release the tubewell connection along with costs to be deposited within 30 days of the receipt of certified copy of the order dated 28/02/2017"; "The certified copy of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh was received by the Department only on 05.04.2017"; "Subsequently, this was forwarded to the Legal Advisor, PSPCL, Patiala for its opinion. The head office returned the file to Hoshiarpur office somewhere in May - June 2017. After receiving the file the office approached the Advocate General, Punjab for recommending the name of an Advocate for the list of panel advocates"; "That on 11/07/2017, the name of the Advocate was recommended and the present counsel was engaged"; "However, subsequently it was discovered that the record of the State Dispute Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh (except the order) were not with the Department.

The Appellant then filed an application asking for the record. The same was received by the Department only on 11/08/2017. The same was forwarded to the counsel by 15/08/2017"; "The counsel for the Appellant was thereafter travelling till 25/08/2017. Subsequently, the Appellant could not travel to Delhi for handing over of the signed and verified the appeal due to the state of affairs as a result of Ram Rahim's conviction". "It is only on this date the Appellant could handover the signed and verified copy of the pleadings, applications and it annexures"; and "That the delay has occurred due to circumstances beyond the control of the Appellant. The delay was neither intentional not willful and occurred only due to bonafide reasons as explained above" point towards managerial inefficiency and perfunctory and casual attitude to the law of limitation, and 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 is visible.

This bench however wants to also satisfy itself that there would be no miscarriage of justice if the delay is not condoned. The District Forum has ordered the PSPCL to release tubewell connection to the complainant along with compensation and litigation costs quantified at Rs.10,000/- within 30 days, and failing which to pay interest @9% p.a. on the aforesaid amount from the date of its Order till realization. The State Commission has dismissed the appeal with Rs. 2,000/- as costs. Without attempting to examine or adjudicate on the Orders of the State Commission or the District Forum on merit, this bench but does not find any reason visible to convince it that there would be any miscarriage of justice if the delay is not condoned. On the contrary, it finds the conduct of the revisionist - PSPCL's concerned officials to have a bad air.

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.

A copy each of this Order be sent to the State Commission and to the District Forum by the Registry within ten days.

A copy each of this Order also be sent to the respondent - complainant and to the chief executive of the revisionist - PSPCL by the Registry within ten days.