Sr. Supdt. Of Post Offices vs Ganga Bai

Heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order dated 29.11.2017, passed by the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pandri, Raipur (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission), whereby the Application, filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay in filing the Appeal, was dismissed on the ground that the explanation submitted was not satisfactory.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that even though there was a delay of 41 days in filing the Appeal, the delay was satisfactorily explained and a liberal approach should have been taken in view of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in G. Ramegowda, Major And Ors. v. Special Land Acquisition Oficer, Bangalore [(1988) 2 SCC 142] and State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO And Ors. [(2005) 3 SCC 752].

There cannot be any dispute that while considering the Application, seeking condonation of delay, filed by the Appellant or the Revision Petition or any other person, whether they are Individuals, Firms, Private Limited Companies, Public Limited Companies, Public Sector Undertakings, Statutory Corporations, Government Departments, State/Central Government etc., a liberal view has to be taken but that has to be considered in view of the grounds given for condonation of delay.

In the Application filed before the State Commission, seeking condonation of delay, the Petitioner had mentioned as follows:

"The Appellant hereby submits as under:

That being aggrieved of the impugned order dated 29.08.2017 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg, C.G. in Complaint Case No. 330/2016 titled 'Smt. Gangabai Vs. Head Post Office Master', the Appellant herein has filed the appeal before this Hon'ble Commission.

That the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg, C.G. passed the order on 29.08.2017 in the aforesaid matter.

That after receiving the aforesaid order, the Appellant took up the matter with higher authorities. After receiving the directions from higher authorities to file an appeal before Hon'ble Commission, the Appellant deposited the amount on ________ and contacted to the counsel for filing the appeal before this Hon'ble Commission.

That the Appellant is a Govt. department and is required to execute the work as per rules. Therefore, the Appellant took up the matter with higher authorities and sought directions to file an appeal in the aforesaid matter. Therefore, there has been delay in filing the appeal before Hon'ble C.G. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

That there has been delay of ____ days in filing the appeal by the Appellant which is not deliberate and due to departmental process and, therefore, is liable to be condoned in the interest of justice.

That an affidavit in support of application is submitted herewith.

Therefore, it is humbly prayed that the delay in filing the appeal, filed by the Appellant, be condoned in the interest of justice and the Appeal may be heard."

On a perusal of the explanation given, we find that no specific dates have been mentioned as to when the matter was taken up with the higher authorities and when the direction was issued by the higher authorities as also what were the reasons for not filing the Appeal within time.

In our considered opinion, the explanation given by the Petitioner before the State Commission, seeking condonation of delay, was not at all satisfactory and in any event cannot inspire confidence so as to take the step of condoning the delay.

That being the position, we are of the considered opinion that the State Commission has rightly not condoned the delay.

The Revision Petition fails and is dismissed accordingly.