Judgment :

An extremely narrow and pedantic approach adopted by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, 'the National Commission') in dealing with the issue of limitation and consequential dismissal of the complaint filed by her for award of compensation in lieu of the death of her husband has compelled the appellant to seek intervention of this Court.

The appellant's husband Shri Jagbir Singh was employed with Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., Delhi. On 5.2.2000, he suffered 85% burn injuries on his body due to sudden bursting of the transformer installed by respondent No.1- U.P. Power Corporation Ltd.

He succumbed to the injuries leaving behind the appellant and three minor children.

The appellant claims to have made representation dated 28.7.2000 to the respondents for award of Rs.25,00,000/-as compensation but they did not respond. Therefore, she filed Civil Suit No.196/2000 in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ghaziabad for payment of compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. The same was dismissed on account of non-payment of deficit court fees amounting to Rs.1,50,607.50. Her plea for waiver of the court fee was also rejected by the trial Court vide order dated 7.8.2000.

The appellant then filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and prayed for issue of a mandamus to the respondents to pay compensation by alleging that her husband had died due to their negligence. The same was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court by observing that the appellant can avail remedy by filing civil suit. SLP (C) No.5210/2002 filed by the appellant against the order of the High Court was summarily dismissed by this Court on 15.3.2002.

Having lost battle in the civil Court due to her inability to pay huge court fee and having failed to persuade the High Court and this Court to entertain her prayer for issue of a mandamus to the respondents to pay compensation, the appellant filed a complaint (O.P. No.253/2002) under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, 'the Act') for award of compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-. By an order dated 25.7.2002, the Commission gave liberty to the appellant to amend the complaint. She availed that opportunity and amended the complaint.

After hearing the counsel for the appellant, the Commission admitted the complaint vide order dated 31.7.2002, which reads as under:

"Admit. Issue notice to the Opp. Parties returnable on 20.1.03."

On notice, respondent No.1 filed reply and the appellant filed rejoinder. She filed her evidence in the form of affidavit dated 14.2.2003, paragraph 23 of which reads as under:

"The Original Petition is within time as per S 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act. The time gap between the death of my husband and the filing of the present Original Petition occurred because the complainant first approached the High Court and then the Supreme Court."

On behalf of respondent No.1, evidence was adduced in the form of affidavit of Shri S.K. Singh, Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, Loni.

In furtherance of the leave granted by the Commission vide order dated 15.1.2012, the appellant filed application dated 24.1.2013 for condonation of delay in filing the complaint. Paragraphs 4 to 11 and the prayer clause of the application read as under:

"4. That the Complainant was advised to file a claim petition, a letter to the Electricity Distribution Division of the Opposite Parties seeking compensation of Rs.25 lakhs. The deceased was drawing Rs.6275 as salary per month at the time of his death. The claim petition was filed on 28.07.2000 as per the record maintained by the Complainant. It is submitted that such a claim petition was submitted to the concerned office by hand and the same was received by them. A true copy of the claim petition dated 28.07.2000 wherein on the left side of the claim paper, it has been mentioned received and signed, along with true translated copy is attached herewith and marked as Annexure B.