1. THIS revision is directed against the order of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (in short, "the State Commission") dated 7.7.2014 in first appeal No.808/2014 whereby the State Commission dismissed the application of the petitioner trust for condonation of delay of 1802 days in filing the appeal and as a consequence dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation.
2. LEARNED counsel for the petitioner trust has contended that the impugned order of the State Commission dismissing the application for condonation of delay as well as appeal is not sustainable for the reason that the State Commission has failed to appreciate that the delay in filing of appeal was unintentional and it occurred because of connivance of some officials of the trust with the respondent/complainant as a result of which the file for seeking approval to file appeal was not put up before the concerned authority i.e. the Chairman.
3. WE do not find merit in this contention. The State Comission in para 2 has reproduced the gist of application for condonation of delay moved under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which is reproduced as under: -
"During the course of arguments, the counsel for the appellant has referred to the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court "N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy, 1999 2 RCR(Civ) 578", the Hon''ble Supreme Court held that: -
"the length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criteria. In every case of delay, there can be some lapse of part of the litigant concerned, That alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him."
In case we taken the ratio of law held in above referred judgment, we have to consider what is the explanation on behalf of the appellants for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The perusal of the application itself reveals that the certified copy of the impugned order was received in the office of the appellant and was registered in their diary No.526 dated 23.6.2009. The legal opinion was sought from the counsel, who conducted the case before the District forum, who gave its opinion that the case is not fit for appeal. It was duly concurred by the Law Officer of the appellant then it was forwarded to the E.O., who agreed with the said note and forwarded the same to the Chairman but there is no noted of the Chairman whether he agreed to the proposal given by the counsel for the appellant, their Law Officer and the E.O. No reason has been detailed in the application why the file was not put up before the Chairman till 28.05.2013 when the respondent appeared before the Chairman. No doubt that date wise proceedings after 28.5.2013 has been given by the applicant but no explanation is coming forthy why the file was not put before the Chairman when it was marked by the E.O. to the Chairman in the year 2009. The valuable right has accrued to the respondent and after a gap of more than 4 years, the same cannot be taken away simply on the whims of the appellant that now they have decided to file the appeal. Once the decision was taken on opinion of their counsel and Law Officer as well as Executive Officer agreed with the proposal that no appeal is to be filed against the impugned order then they cannot reprobate with the plea that now they have decided the same to file the appeal. Private individuals and Government offices are on the same footing. They will have to give the explanation for each delay. The Hon''ble Supreme Court and the Hon''ble National Commission has hold in number of cases that in case no proper explanation for any sufficient cause comes forth then delay cannot be condoned. In the present case the delay is of 1802 days, which is a very long delay for which no sufficient case is coming forth. The Hon''ble National Commission in case "HUDA Vs. Krishna Devi,2010 2 CPJ 213" held that the Department of Government or Limited Companies cannot be shown any indulgence in the matter of limitation and asked the authorities to book the officials responsible for delay in filing the appeal, causing great financial loss to the State Exchequer."
On reading of the above, it is clear that the file in question was processed. The counsel who conducted the case of the improvement trust before the District Forum opined against filing of appeal. The opinion of the counsel was concurred by the Law Officer of the trust and even the Executive Officer agreed with the opinion not to file the appeal. Thereafter, the file was marked to Chairman in the year 2009. There is no cogent explanation why the file was put up before the Chairman for four years till 2013. The explanation that some officials of the trust connived with the complainant and that is why the file was not put up before the Chairman is nothing but a lame excuse. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the State Commission has rightly declined to accept the explanation for delay. Assuming that the file was deliberately not put up before the Chairman by some official of the trust, the trust may fix the responsibility and recover the loss, if any, from the concerned official.
4. OTHERWISE also, the consumer dispute relates to the refund of the earnest money deposited by respondent/complainant for booking of a flat. Facts of the case are that complainant and her husband both applied for allotment of plot under the scheme floated by the petitioner trust in different categories. It is a coincidence that both of them succeeded in draw of lots. As per norms of the allotment either husband or his wife could have been allotted a plot. Under ordinary circumstances in the given facts one of the allotments was required to be cancelled with refund of earnest money. The petitioner/opposite party has denied the refund of earnest money on a flimsy ground that the complainant failed to disclose that her husband has already been allotted a plot under a different scheme. There is no justification for such a refusal. Despite of a clear finding from the District Forum, the improvement trust has unnecessarily filed the appeal with a delay of five years alongwith the application for condonation of delay, with a view to delay the fruits of the order of the District Forum to the complainant. This unreasonable conduct of the petitioner calls for punitive cost. Thus, we dismiss the revision petition with punitive cost of Rs.1,00,000/ - (rupees one lakh only) to be deposited by the petitioner trust with "PAO -Ministry of Consumer Affairs."
