IMPORTANT POINT
Delay of 347 days in filing appeals cannot be condoned.

ORDER

The present Revision Petitions (RPs) have been filed by the Petitioner against Respondents as detailed above, under section 58 of Consumer Protection Act 2019, against the order dated 01.07.2020 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in MA No. 845 of 2020 in / and FA No. 183 of 2020, MA No. 848 of 2020 in/and FA No. 184 of 2020, MA No. 850 of 2020 in / and FA No. 185 of 2020 and MA No. 852 of 2020 in / and FA No. 186 of 2020, whereby the said M.A.s and consequently FAs have been dismissed by the State Commission on ground of limitation. The said four appeals were filed after a delay of 347 days.

2. As common issues are involved in the four cases, they are taken up together. However, RP No. 296 of 2021 is taken as lead case for presenting facts.

3. Petitioner has challenged the said Order dated 01.07.2020 of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:—

(a) State Commission did not consider that delay in filing Appeal occurred due to the reason that delay occurred due to vacancy for the post of Engineer, In-charge of PSPCL DS Sub-Division, Jaito who was responsible for assigning the Petitioner’s Department court cases, untimely and unfortunate demise of officer dealing with court cases of PSPCL Sub-Division, Jaito and due to obtaining necessary approval from concerned legal authorities.

(b) Sufficient cause existed on account of which delay occurred.

(c) The State Commission did not consider the extraordinary circumstances that led to the delay in filing the First Appeals.

4. In the condonation of delay application filed before the State Commission, following reasons/grounds for condonation were mentioned:—

(a) The Learned District Forum, Faridkot passed the order dated 15.01.2019 filed by the respondent/complainant. The certified copy of impugned judgment dated 15.01.2019 was issued to the Applicants/Appellants on 07.02.2019.

(b) That one Mr. Balour Singh was assigned with the duty with respect to the legal matters. Since, Mr. Balour Singh was unwell during that period and for most of time he remained o leave due to his illness. Ultimately on 06.05.2019 he succumbed to his illness and unfortunately passed away. A copy of his office order that he was handling the legal matters and copy of his leave sanction office order and death certificate are also annexed herewith as Annexure A to Annexure G.

(c) That thereafter, the new officer was appointed at his place on 22.08.2019. Since there was no proper hand over due to untimely death of Mr. Balour Singh, therefore, these files could not come to the knowledge of the new officers because these files were kept separately at different place. Thereafter, on 22.07.2019 complainant approached the appellants for compliance of the impugned judgment. Thereafter, the matter came to the knowledge of new officials and he looked for the files and perused the matter and thereafter the legal opinion was sought and ultimately the matter was sent to AG Office on 21.10.2019 and on 30.10.2019 the Counsel for the Applicants/Appellants were engaged. After getting the documents, the documents were perused by the counsel and it was found that the documents are incomplete.

(d) That immediately the counsel informed the department-PSPCL vide email dated 02.11.2019 to provide the necessary documents, which were provided by the department on 11.11.2019. Accordingly, appeal was drafted and sent to the Department on 11.11.2019 for approval and signature purpose. Further, the concerned officials sent the same to legal cell for vetting and the complete signed coy of the Appeal has been provided to counsel by Corporation/PSPCL on ......... (left blank in RP Nos.296, 297 and 299 of 2021), accordingly, the appeal had been filed before this Hon’ble Commission. Therefore, in this process, delay of ......... (left blank in RP Nos.296, 297 and 299 of 2021) days have occurred in filing the appeal. However, in RP No.298 of 2021