UNION OF INDIA (NORTHERN RAILWAY)
THROUGH COMMERCIAL MANAGER, NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY , IZZATNAGAR,
BAREILLY
UTTAR PRADESH                                             ...........Petitioner(s)
                                               Versus    
SMT. FARYAL
W/O. SH. ABDUL HAI R/O. ABDULLAH BUILDING BAREILLY ROAD, HALDWANI
DISTRICT-NAINITAL
UTTARAKHAND                                             ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:    
     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN,PRESIDENT
     HON'BLE MRS. M. SHREESHA,MEMBER

Dated : 16 Apr 2018


1.       This Revision Petition, under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), by Union of India (Northern Railway), the sole Opposite Party in the Complaint under the Act, is directed against the order dated 19.01.2017, passed by the Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Dehradun (for short “the State Commission”), in First Appeal No. 35 of 2016.  By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the Appeal, preferred by the Petitioner, as barred by limitation, inasmuch as there was a delay of 141 days in filing the same.            

2.       In the absence of a copy of the order, dated 04.09.2015, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Nainital (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint Case No. 60 of 2009, preferred by the Respondent/Complainant, being brought on record, it is not clear against which order/directions, the aforesaid Appeal had been filed by the Petitioner. The impugned order also does not throw any light in this regard.        

3.       Be that as it may, the material facts, leading to the filing of the present Revision Petition, as culled out from the Complaint, are as follows:

          On 01.05.2008 the Complainant was travelling from Haldwani to Delhi in Uttaranchal Sampark Kranti Express against proper reserved ticket.  When the train reached Rudrapur Station, a group of 5-6 persons boarded the train and sat close to the Complainant.  A lady member in the group sprayed some substance towards the Complainant.  She felt drowsy.  The group members removed from her purse a sum of ₹35,000/- and 50 US Dollars.  On regaining consciousness near Rampur Station, she shouted for help, where-upon two constables-on-duty came but did nothing.  The Complainant also did not find the Conductor in the train.  On reaching Delhi, the Complainant lodged a complaint under Section 379 IPC at GRP Police Station, Delhi, but all in vain.  In the said background, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner for not protecting the passengers in a reserved compartment, the afore-noted Complaint came to be filed before the District Forum, wherein the Complainant had prayed for a total compensation of ₹62,000/- under different heads.

4.       Aggrieved with the aforesaid order passed by the District Forum, the Petitioner carried the matter further in their Appeal to the State Commission, albeit, with a delay of 141 days.  Since the explanation furnished by the Petitioner for condonation of the said delay is reflected in the impugned order, we refrain ourselves from burdening this order by repeating the same.

5.       As noted above, while reaching the conclusion that the Petitioner had failed to make out a sufficient cause for condonation of the delay in filing the Appeal, the State Commission has declined to condone the delay and consequently dismissed the Appeal as barred by limitation.

6.       Hence, the present Revision Petition.

7.       The short question falling for consideration in this Revision Petition is whether or not the State Commission has committed any jurisdictional error in not exercising the discretion vested in it under the First Proviso to Section 15 of the Act for condoning the delay in filing of the Appeal.     

8.       We have heard Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner on the question of delay.

9.       Having carefully examined the explanation for the delay in filing the Appeal, we are of the view that the State Commission has not committed any jurisdictional error in coming to the conclusion that no sufficient cause had been made out by the Petitioner to explain the inordinate delay of 141 days in filing the Appeal.            

10.     Admittedly, certified copy of the order, dated 04.09.2015, passed by the District Forum, was promptly obtained by the Petitioner’s Advocate on 09.09.2015.  Bearing in mind the limited statutory period of 30 days, as provided under Section-15 of the Act, for filing Appeal against the order of the District Forum, the Petitioner/its Advocate was required to do the needful accordingly.  Evidently, exhausting the said limited period, the copy of the said order was sent to Petitioner’s Bareilly Divisional Office, which had been received by them on 08.10.2015.  Though, by the said date, the aforesaid limitation period had already expired, yet the Petitioner took over 40 days in assigning the matter to its Advocate. Except for mentioning the date of 21.11.2015, on which date the documents sent by the Petitioner were received by one Parag Kumar, its Panel Lawyer, the two affidavits filed for condonation of the delay in filing the Appeal were conspicuously silent with respect to the dates: when the file was sent to Gorakhpur Head Office; when the sanction for filing the Appeal was accorded; and when the documents were sent to the said Panel Lawyer.  Further, the plea urged by the Petitioner to the effect that on account of ill-health of the said Panel Lawyer, the Appeal could not be filed in time, was also not supported by the affidavit of the Lawyer and, hence, the stated plea was nothing but an after-thought. Though, before sending the papers to the said Panel Lawyer, the Petitioner had already accorded its sanction for filing Appeal in the matter, there is no explanation as to what prompted the Petitioner to seek further legal opinion in the month of January, 2016.  In any case, the fact remains that after completing the ancillary formalities, the Appeal had been filed before the State Commission only on 23.02.2016, with the afore-stated inordinate delay. Mercifully, even after suffering an adverse order by the State Commission on the ground of limitation, still the Petitioner has filed the present Revision Petition with a delay of 16 days, over and above the period of 90 days, as provided under Regulation 14 of Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. Such casual and indifferent attitude on the part of the government functionaries has been deprecated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Post Master General and Ors. V. Living Media India Limited And Anr., (2012) 3 SCC 563, wherein the Apex Court has been pleased to observe thus:  

“28.    Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody, including the Government.    
 
29. In our view, it is right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bona fide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few.”

(emphasis supplied)
 
11.     In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the Petitioner had failed to make out a ‘sufficient cause’ for condonation of the afore-stated inordinate delay in filing the Appeal and the State Commission, for the reasons recorded in the impugned order, did not commit any jurisdictional error in dismissing the Appeal as barred by limitation.           

12.     Consequently, the Revision Petition fails and is dismissed in limine accordingly.