Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 623 (UTT)

Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Ltd. v. Mukhtiar Singh

2009-12-11

R.D.SHENOY, R.K.BATTA

body2009
ORDER Mr. Justice R.K. Datta, Presiding Member (Oral) : Heard Counsel for the petitioner. The State Commission has dismissed the appeal on account of delay of 105 days in filing the appeal as also on merits. The State Commission found that no sufficient cause has been shown by the complainant for condoning delay. The petitioner/appellant had sought condonation of delay on the folio wing grounds : "That the delay in filing the appeal is not intentional but because of procedural and unavoidable circumstances. The District Consumer Forum generally gives the copy of order after 10 days of the pronouncement of order. After receiving the copy of the order from District Consumer Forum by the concerned SDO, the SDO has sent the copy of order through post to Law Department as well as other higher officers for taking appropriate decision regarding filing of appeal. A copy of order sent to Law Department by post takes 10 to 15 days to reach Law Department; Panchkula. After getting the approval from the Legal Remembrancer the file was again received by Advocate, who marked it to assistant and fax messages were typed and issued to SDO to contact the Advocate along with entire record for filing appeal before State Commission. The SDO concerned after receiving messages has prepared the entire documents and files and after ensuring rectification of his system or other problems he contacted the Advocate. After receiving all the documents the advocate has given dictation within two days. Then files were given to Munshi to prepare• 5 sets of files of the case. So, the appeal got finally ready for filing before this Hon'ble Commission. So, it is clear that this is a procedural• delay not intentional or with mala fide intention. The Supreme Court has also condoned delay of department on account of procedural delay, etc." 2. According to the petitioner after receipt of copy of the order from the District Forum the District Forum, the SDO concerned sent copy of the order through post to Law Department as well as other higher officers for taking appropriate decision regarding filing of appeal. It took 10-15 days for the copy to reach law department at Panchkula. It is rather strange that it took 10-15 days for a copy to be sent from Kamal, Punjab to Panchkula. The copy could have certainly been sent by fax, e-mail or by courier service. It took 10-15 days for the copy to reach law department at Panchkula. It is rather strange that it took 10-15 days for a copy to be sent from Kamal, Punjab to Panchkula. The copy could have certainly been sent by fax, e-mail or by courier service. In the explanation it is further explained that after getting the approval from the Legal Remembrancer the file was again received by Advocate. When approval was taken and when file was received by ¢e Advocate has not been disclosed. It appears that even the entire papers had not been kept ready prior to the taking of the opinion for filing revision and the SDO concerned later on prepared the entire documents and files, after which it was given to the Advocate for filing the revision. The explanation can by no stretch of imagination be said to be satisfactory to condone delay of 105 days. The State Commission had, therefore, very rightly dismissed the appeal on account of delay in filing the appeal. 3. On merits also the case has been examined by the State Commission and it was found that there was no merit, Despite depositing the estimated amount 'for shifting the electricity connection to the tube-well of the complainant from the acquired land to the other land purchased by complainant in village Jabhala, electric connection was not shifted as a result of which, the complainant had suffered loss on account of non irrigation of the crops. The District Forum had awarded a compensation of Rs. 50,000 as against the claim of the complainant to the tune of Rs. 1,25,000 which has been confirmed by the State Commission. The State Commission after taking into consideration all the relevant facts, confirmed the order passed by the District Forum. 4. We find that no case has been made out for interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as we do not find any material irregularity, illegality or jurisdietional order in the order passed by the two Fora below. Revision is according dismissed with no order as to costs. R.P. dismissed.