Back
PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.L. Bahri, President &
Mr. Ram Lal Gupta, Member
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.—Appellants
versus
ASHOK KUMAR DHAND—Respondent
M.A. No. 69 & Appeal No. 189 of 1996— Decided on 29.9.1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants :Mr. G.C. Bobber, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Jasbir Rattan, Advocate.
Administrative procedures and institutional or bureaucratic delays can be considered as factors for condoning delay in filing an appeal.
Headnote:
DELAY IN FILING APPEAL - CONDONATION OF DELAY - ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE - TELEPHONE SERVICE - DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE - COMPENSATION - RENTAL CHARGES.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Telephone Department, filed an appeal against the order of the District Forum, Sangrur, which had awarded compensation to the respondent, a telephone subscriber, for deficiency in service. The appellant also filed an application for condoning the delay in filing the appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the delay in filing the appeal was sufficiently explained as it was due to administrative procedures and the need to refer the matter to the Head Office for a decision. The court also found that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Telephone Department as the telephone was not functioning properly for a significant period of time.
Issues: 1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned? 2. Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the Telephone Department?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned as it was due to administrative procedures and the need to refer the matter to the Head Office for a decision. The court relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court, which held that factors such as red tapism in Government, delays in correspondence, and institutional or bureaucratic procedures should be taken into consideration while deciding whether to condone delay. 2. The court held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Telephone Department as the telephone was not functioning properly for a significant period of time. The court noted that the complainant had made several complaints to the Telephone Department, but the telephone was not repaired properly. The court also noted that the billing records showed that the complainant's usage of the telephone was significantly lower during the period when the telephone was not functioning properly.
Final Decision: The court accepted the appeal and modified the order of the District Forum. The court directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 4,000/- as damages, Rs. 550/- as litigation charges before the District Forum, and to refund 50% of the rental from November 16, 1992 to May 17, 1993.
Mr. Justice A.L. Bahri, President—This appeal has been filed by the Telephone Department. Along with the appeal, application for condoning delay in filing the same was also filed. This application has been contested on behalf of the respondent. Thus before deciding the appeal on merits, this application is for disposal.
2. The District Forum, Sangrur passed the impugned order on October 6, 1995.’Copy-of the same was prepared and delivered to the appellant’s representative on April 12, 1996. Before the Competent Authority, the matter was put up on April 15, 1996. It was ordered that opinion regarding filing of the appeal be obtained from the Head Office and further steps to implement the order be taken from the Head Office. Telephonically message was received for filing the appeal on May 15, 1996. Thereafter, Counsel at Chandigarh was contacted. Appeal was got prepared and taken to Sangrur for signatures of the Competent Authority. Ultimately, it was filed on May 23, 1996. The delay of 12 days occurred on account of administrative procedure. In support of the application, affidavit of Shri J.S. Jaswal, A.O. (TA) in the Office of Telecom District Manager, Sangrur was filed. In the reply filed by the respondent-complainant, allegations contained in the application for condoning delay have been refuted on the ground of being vague and lacking material explanation. Learned Counel for the appellants has relied upon the decision of the Delhi State Commission in “Delhi Development Authority v. I.S. Narula” III (1995) CPJ 333. While making reference to the decisions of the Supreme Court in “Collector of Land Acquisition v. Katiji, AIR 1987 SC 1353, “G. Ramegowda v. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer”, AIR 1988 SC 897 and a Division Bench judgment of the Delhi High Court in “Union of India v. R.P. Builders,” 1994 Rajdhani Law Reporter (DB) 460, a passage from R.P. Builder’s case was quoted and it was held that each and every days delay was not required to be explained as such. Such factors, which are required to be taken into consideration and were quoted in the judgment, are as under :
“9. The above decisions of the Supreme Court clearly lay down that while the State cannot be treated differently from any other litigant, the Court is “bound” to take into consideration the following factors — (i) red tapism in Government; (ii) delays in correspondence; (iii) habitual indifference of Government Officials or Government Pleaders as distinct from the usual diligence of ordinary litigants or Lawyers for private parties; (iv) collusion or negligence by Government Officials or Government Pleaders or fraud; (v) damage to public interest or to public funds or interests of the State; (vi) institutional or bureaucratic procedures as well as delays arising thereon; and (vii) need to render substantial justice on merits. It is not as if, fraud on the part of the Government officials or Pleaders has necessarily to be proved by the Government in every case.”
3. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellants is that since the matter was to be referred to the Head Office for taking decision for filing the appeal, sometime was taken therein i.e., mere was delay of few days at the maximum for taking decision for filing the appeal, which was on account of administrative procedure. The subsequent delay has been explained of visiting Chandigarh, consulting the lawyer taking back the appeal for getting signatures of Competent Authority and then filing the appeal. In our view, the delay in the present case stands sufficiently explained. Since, the matter has to be referred to the Head Office, sometime must have been taken for the papers to reach there. From April 15,1996 when the matter was referred to the Head Office, final decision to file the appeal was taken and communicated on May 17,1996. Although it was expected of the Head Office to file the affidavit as to how the matter was dealt with, however, as day-to-day explanation was not called for the furt
