Back
RAJASTHAN STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JAIPUR
Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.K.M. Lodha, President
& Mr. Damodar Thanvi, Member
THE DY DIRECTOR, RAJASTHAN STATE INSURANCE & G.P.F. DEPT.—Appellant
versus
SHRI MOHAN LAL CHORASIA—Respondent
Appeal No. 378 of 1993—Decided on 5.10.1993
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. M.L. Vyas, Advocate.
For the Respondent: None.
A government department is not entitled to any different treatment than a private party in matters of condonation of delay in filing an appeal.
Headnote:
LIMITATION - CONDONATION OF DELAY - CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 - SEC. 15 - LIMITATION ACT, 1963 - SEC. 5 - SUFFICIENT CAUSE - GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT - DELAY IN FILING APPEAL - EXPLANATION OF DELAY - BURDEN OF PROOF - STRICT REQUIREMENTS - DELAY NOT EXPLAINED - APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION DISMISSED - APPEAL DISMISSED AS TIME BARRED.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a government department, filed an appeal against an order of the District Consumer Forum 26 days after the expiry of the limitation period. The appellant applied for condonation of delay, explaining that the delay was due to the time taken for obtaining sanction from the Finance Department and the Law Department, and for preparing and typing the appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The State Commission held that the appellant had not explained the delay of 26 days in a satisfactory manner. The Commission noted that the appellant had not explained the delay day by day, and that the averments in the application for condonation were cryptic and bald. The Commission also noted that the appellant had not even averred as to when the prescribed period of limitation expired.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellant had explained the delay of 26 days in a satisfactory manner? 2. Whether the appellant had discharged the burden of proof to avail the benefit of condonation under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 or the proviso to Sec. 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The expression 'sufficient cause' in Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and the proviso to Sec. 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 must be construed liberally to advance substantial justice. 2. However, the appellant must explain each day of default beyond the terminus line of the prescribed period of limitation. 3. The appellant must show that the delay was due to some event or circumstance arising before limitation expired, and that it was not possible to file the appeal within time. 4. The appellant must discharge the burden of proof to show that there was sufficient cause for the delay.
Final Decision: The State Commission dismissed the application for condonation of delay and dismissed the appeal as time barred.
Mr. Justice S.K.M. Lodha, President—The question of limitation is involved in this appeal. The complainant-respondent filed a complaint under Sec. 12 against the opposite party appellant which was registered as Complaint Case No. 417/90. The opposite party-appellant resisted the complaint by filing a version of the case. The District Forum after hearing the parties passed the impugned order on 28-12-1992 wherein certain directions were issued to the opposite party-appellant. Aggrieved the opposite party has filed the appeal under Sec. 15 of the Act on 22-2-93 against the order dated 26-12-92 passed by the District Forum Kota.
2. Office reported that this appeal was presented 26 days after the expiry of the period of limitation. After perusing the application for condonation of delay notice was issued to the appellant/counsel to show cause as to why the appeal be not rejected as barred by time. In pursuance of that Mr. M.L. Vyas, learned Counsel for the appellant appeared. He was heard on the question of limitation on 25-9-93. The application for certified copy was made on 30-12-92. The date fixed for issuing the copy was 4-1-93. The copy was ready on 30-12-92. It was delivered on 4-1-93. The appellant is entitled to 5 days as time spent in obtaining the certified copy. Office report that the appeal is barred by 26 days was not contested by the learned Counsel for the appellant. An application for condo nation delay was submitted with the memo of appeals Paras Nos. 1, 2,3 of the application read as follows :
“1. That the order under appeal was passed by learned District Consumer Forum, Kota on 28-12-1992. An application to furnish a certified copy was submitted to the Court below on 30-12-1992 and the copy was delivered to the applicant on 4-1-1993. Papers to file appeal were forwarded from Kota to Jaipur.
2. That after due processing and examination, at the departmental level, matter was referred on 12-1-1993 to the Finance Department of the Government of Rajasthan for concurrence to file an appeal. The requisite sanction for the purpose was issued from Finance on 3-2-1993. The Law Department of the Government was also consulted, wherefrom Shri M.L. Vyas was appointed to prepare and file the appeal. Officer Incharge received papers on 15-2-1993.
3. That some time was consumed in collecting requisite material, and 2/3 days consumed in preparation, typing of the appeal and petition for condo nation and other formalities. In between on 19th and 21st February, 1993 there were public holidays. As such the appeal is being filed on 22-2-1993.”
3. In support of the application for condonation of delay Shri Surendra Pal Singh. Dy, Director, Insurance and G.P.F. Secretariat, Jaipur submitted his affidavit. Paras 2 and 3 of the affidavit are as follows : —
“2. That the annexed appeal and application for condonation of delay have been drafted under my instructions by the Counsel. I have read and understood the contents thereof fully and I admit them to be true and correct.
3. That the contents of the paras enumerated in the referred appeal and the application for condonation of delay are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and based on official record which I have perused and have satisfied myself to be true and correct.”
4. The application for condonation of delay was filed under Sec. 15 of the Act read with Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Proviso to Sec. 15 of the Act reads as follows : —
“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.”
5. The appellant is required to explain each day of delay after the expiry of the period of limitation. As stated above the appellant is entitled to 30 days + 5 days (period prescribed for filing the appeal plus time spent in obtaining the certified copy). In these circumstances, we have to see whether the appellant has succeeded in explaining
