Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited Vs. M/S. Sagoon Builders Pvt. Ltd. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1113409
CourtDelhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided OnJan-06-2000
Case NumberAppeal No. A-1762 of 1999
JudgeLOKESHWAR PRASAD, PRESIDENT; DESH BANDHU MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE RUMNITA MITTAL, MEMBER
AppellantMahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
RespondentM/S. Sagoon Builders Pvt. Ltd.
Excerpt:
consumer protection act, 1986 - section 2(1)(g), section 14(1)(d) - comparative citations: 2000 (2) clt 214, 2000 (2) cpr 167, 2000 (1) cpj 502lokeshwar prasad, president: 1. the present appeal, filed by the appellant/mtnl under section 15 of the consumer protection act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the act), is directed against order dated 19th may, 1999, passed by district forum-v, in complaint case no. 523/1998 — entitled m/s. sagoon builders pvt. ltd. v. mahanagar telephone nigam ltd. 2. the facts relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated are, that the respondent had filed a complaint under section 12 of the act, in the district forum averring that telephone no. 636032 was installed at 42-friends colony, new delhi, and the respondent vide application dated 7.1.1994 had applied for the shifting of the abovesaid telephone to flat no. 105, pocket-a1, sector-7, rohini, delhi-85, for the use of its legal adviser. it was stated by the respondent in the complaint that the concerned functionary of the appellant had issued an o.b. for the shifting of the abovesaid telephone on 5.4.1994 but despite issue of ob and repeated requests by the respondent the telephone in question was not shifted. the respondent in the complaint, filed before the district forum had claimed a compensation to the extent of rs. 1.00 lac on the ground that the telephone in question was to be shifted for the use of its legal adviser and due to the non-shifting of the telephone, the respondent had to suffer considerable loss. 3. the claim of the respondent was contested by the appellant in the district forum. the stand taken by the appellant in the written statement/written version was that due to technical problems, the telephone in question could not be shifted. it was stated in the written statement/written version, filed by the appellant in the district forum that there was no ‘deficiency in service on the part of the appellant. 4. the learned district forum vide impugned order has held that there was ‘deficiency in service on the part of the appellant and has directed the appellant to pay to the respondent a sum of rs. 10,000/- as compensation within two months from the date of the order. 5. feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal under section 15 of the act. 6. we have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at length on the question of admission of the present appeal and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. the order, being impugned in the present proceedings, was passed by the learned district forum on 19.5.1999. in terms of the provisions contained in section 15 of the act, the present appeal should have been filed within a period of thirty days from the date of the order. however, proviso to the above section provides that the state commission may entertain an appeal even after the expiry of the abovesaid period of thirty days if it is satisfied that there was ‘sufficient cause for not filing the same within the abovesaid period. admittedly, the present appeal has not been filed by the appellant within the prescribed period of thirty days. the same has been filed on 30.11.1999. alongwith the appeal, the appellant has also filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. thereafter on 23.12.1999 the appellant has also filed an additional affidavit detailing therein the reasons for not filing the appeal in time. in the abovesaid application and in the additional affidavit dated 23.12.1999, seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, it is stated that the copy of the impugned order was received on 26.5.1999 in the area office and the same was sent to the legal cell of the headquarter of the appellant on 21.6.1999. it is further stated that the impugned order was put up before the sde (legal) on 23.7.1999 and the sde (legal) after examining the same, put up the same before the agm (legal), who opined that there was scope for filing the appeal. it is further stated that on 2.9.1999 an advocate was nominated for preparing the appeal and the file was handed over to the advocate on 8.9.1999 for preparing and filing the appeal. it is stated that the advocate prepared necessary appeal on 10.9.1999 but the same could not be signed before 22.11.1999 as the documents could not be traced in the area office before 19.11.1999. 7. as already stated, there is a statutory provision enabling the commission to entertain the appeal even after the expiry of the statutory period prescribed for filing an appeal, provided the appellant satisfies that there was ‘sufficient cause for not filing the same within time. the words ‘sufficient cause, occurring in proviso to section 15 of the act, are of utmost significance. as per settled law, culled out from various judicial decisions, the above expression, ‘sufficient cause though deserves to receive a liberal construction, yet, a just and equitable balance has to be maintained between the right secured by the respondent as a result of the expiry of the prescribed period of limitation and the injustice of depriving the appellant of adjudication of his grievances on the merits of his appeal for causes beyond his reasonable control, which means the cause is bona fide and beyond the control of the appellant. though no hard and fast line can be drawn as to what affords ‘sufficient cause in a given case, yet, again as per settled law, any cause which prevents a person from approaching the court within time is ‘sufficient cause. in doing so, it is the test of a reasonable man in normal circumstances which has to be applied. 8. if the above criterion is applied to the present case, it is noticed that the application, seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, and the facts stated in the additional affidavit dated 23.12.1999, miserably fail to meet the above requirement because as per appellants own case, decision to file an appeal was taken on 8.9.1999 and on the same day the file was handed over to the advocate for preparing and filing the appeal. the advocate prepared the appeal on 10.9.1999 and forwarded the same for signatures. as per the case of the appellant, the appeal could not be signed by the authorised officer before 22.11.1999 as the documents could not be traced from the area before 19.11.1999. no affidavit of the person who made the efforts to trace out the documents and ultimately traced out the same on 19.11.1999 has been brought on record and in the absence of the same it is somewhat difficult to believe the version of the appellant as stated in the additional affidavit dated 23.12.1999. 9. in the presence of the above facts and the position explained above, in our opinion, whatever liberal interpretation might be put on the words ‘sufficient cause, it would be impossible for us to hold that there was no negligence or want of bona fides on the part of the appellant. in our opinion, the appellant in the present case, in the given facts, has miserably failed to show ‘sufficient cause for condoning the delay and, therefore, the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal is hereby rejected. 10. the present appeal, filed by the appellant, besides being barred by limitation is also devoid of substance on merits because it has been held by the learned district forum in the impugned order that there was inordinate delay of 5 years in shifting the telephone in question which proves ‘deficiency in service on the part of the appellant. in our opinion, no fault can be found with the above findings of the learned district forum. the same, therefore, call for no interference by this commission in exercise of its appellate powers. 11. thus, viewed from all angles, the present appeal filed by the appellant is devoid of substance. the same merits dismissal. accordingly, the same is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. it is directed that the amount in question in terms of the orders of the district forum be paid to the respondent within 15 days from the date of this order. 12. the appeal, filed by the appellant, stands disposed of in above terms. appeal dismissed.
Judgment:

Lokeshwar Prasad, President:

1. The present appeal, filed by the appellant/MTNL under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act), is directed against order dated 19th May, 1999, passed by District Forum-V, in Complaint Case No. 523/1998 — entitled M/s. Sagoon Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.

2. The facts relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated are, that the respondent had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act, in the District Forum averring that telephone No. 636032 was installed at 42-Friends Colony, New Delhi, and the respondent vide application dated 7.1.1994 had applied for the shifting of the abovesaid telephone to Flat No. 105, Pocket-A1, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi-85, for the use of its Legal Adviser. It was stated by the respondent in the complaint that the concerned functionary of the appellant had issued an O.B. for the shifting of the abovesaid telephone on 5.4.1994 but despite issue of OB and repeated requests by the respondent the telephone in question was not shifted. The respondent in the complaint, filed before the District Forum had claimed a compensation to the extent of Rs. 1.00 lac on the ground that the telephone in question was to be shifted for the use of its Legal Adviser and due to the non-shifting of the telephone, the respondent had to suffer considerable loss.

3. The claim of the respondent was contested by the appellant in the District Forum. The stand taken by the appellant in the written statement/written version was that due to technical problems, the telephone in question could not be shifted. It was stated in the written statement/written version, filed by the appellant in the District Forum that there was no ‘deficiency in service on the part of the appellant.

4. The learned District Forum vide impugned order has held that there was ‘deficiency in service on the part of the appellant and has directed the appellant to pay to the respondent a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation within two months from the date of the order.

5. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 15 of the Act.

6. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant at length on the question of admission of the present appeal and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. The order, being impugned in the present proceedings, was passed by the learned District Forum on 19.5.1999. In terms of the provisions contained in Section 15 of the Act, the present appeal should have been filed within a period of thirty days from the date of the order. However, proviso to the above section provides that the State Commission may entertain an appeal even after the expiry of the abovesaid period of thirty days if it is satisfied that there was ‘sufficient cause for not filing the same within the abovesaid period. Admittedly, the present appeal has not been filed by the appellant within the prescribed period of thirty days. The same has been filed on 30.11.1999. Alongwith the appeal, the appellant has also filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Thereafter on 23.12.1999 the appellant has also filed an additional affidavit detailing therein the reasons for not filing the appeal in time. In the abovesaid application and in the additional affidavit dated 23.12.1999, seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, it is stated that the copy of the impugned order was received on 26.5.1999 in the Area Office and the same was sent to the legal cell of the Headquarter of the appellant on 21.6.1999. It is further stated that the impugned order was put up before the SDE (Legal) on 23.7.1999 and the SDE (Legal) after examining the same, put up the same before the AGM (Legal), who opined that there was scope for filing the appeal. It is further stated that on 2.9.1999 an Advocate was nominated for preparing the appeal and the file was handed over to the Advocate on 8.9.1999 for preparing and filing the appeal. It is stated that the Advocate prepared necessary appeal on 10.9.1999 but the same could not be signed before 22.11.1999 as the documents could not be traced in the Area Office before 19.11.1999.

7. As already stated, there is a statutory provision enabling the Commission to entertain the appeal even after the expiry of the statutory period prescribed for filing an appeal, provided the appellant satisfies that there was ‘sufficient cause for not filing the same within time. The words ‘sufficient cause, occurring in proviso to Section 15 of the Act, are of utmost significance. As per settled law, culled out from various judicial decisions, the above expression, ‘sufficient cause though deserves to receive a liberal construction, yet, a just and equitable balance has to be maintained between the right secured by the respondent as a result of the expiry of the prescribed period of limitation and the injustice of depriving the appellant of adjudication of his grievances on the merits of his appeal for causes beyond his reasonable control, which means the cause is bona fide and beyond the control of the appellant. Though no hard and fast line can be drawn as to what affords ‘sufficient cause in a given case, yet, again as per settled law, any cause which prevents a person from approaching the Court within time is ‘sufficient cause. In doing so, it is the test of a reasonable man in normal circumstances which has to be applied.

8. If the above criterion is applied to the present case, it is noticed that the application, seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, and the facts stated in the additional affidavit dated 23.12.1999, miserably fail to meet the above requirement because as per appellants own case, decision to file an appeal was taken on 8.9.1999 and on the same day the file was handed over to the Advocate for preparing and filing the appeal. The Advocate prepared the appeal on 10.9.1999 and forwarded the same for signatures. As per the case of the appellant, the appeal could not be signed by the authorised officer before 22.11.1999 as the documents could not be traced from the area before 19.11.1999. No affidavit of the person who made the efforts to trace out the documents and ultimately traced out the same on 19.11.1999 has been brought on record and in the absence of the same it is somewhat difficult to believe the version of the appellant as stated in the additional affidavit dated 23.12.1999.

9. In the presence of the above facts and the position explained above, in our opinion, whatever liberal interpretation might be put on the words ‘sufficient cause, it would be impossible for us to hold that there was no negligence or want of bona fides on the part of the appellant. In our opinion, the appellant in the present case, in the given facts, has miserably failed to show ‘sufficient cause for condoning the delay and, therefore, the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal is hereby rejected.

10. The present appeal, filed by the appellant, besides being barred by limitation is also devoid of substance on merits because it has been held by the learned District Forum in the impugned order that there was inordinate delay of 5 years in shifting the telephone in question which proves ‘deficiency in service on the part of the appellant. In our opinion, no fault can be found with the above findings of the learned District Forum. The same, therefore, call for no interference by this Commission in exercise of its appellate powers.

11. Thus, viewed from all angles, the present appeal filed by the appellant is devoid of substance. The same merits dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. It is directed that the amount in question in terms of the orders of the District Forum be paid to the respondent within 15 days from the date of this order.

12. The appeal, filed by the appellant, stands disposed of in above terms.

Appeal dismissed.