DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM Vs. BINDU SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALONG with the appeal appellant has filed an application seeking condonation of delay of 61 days has been moved. The reasons stated in para No. 2 of the application are as under:

(2.) IT has been expressly provided in Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 that any person aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, may prefer an appeal against such order to the State Commission within a period of 30 days from the date of the order, in such form and manner as may be prescribed. The proviso contained therein permits the State Commission to entertain an appeal after the expiry of period of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within the stipulated period. The expression sufficient cause has not been defined in the Act, rightly so, as it would vary from facts and circumstances of each case. At the same time while examining the, question of condonation of delay, it has to be kept in mind that it is the duty of the condoning authority to record satisfaction of the explanation submitted as to whether it is reasonable and satisfactory which is essential pre -requisite for condonation of delay. It is equally well settled that the delay cannot be condoned on the ground of equity as well as on the ground of generosity.

(3.) AS regards the ground taken in the application it would transpire that totally vague and ambiguous assertion has been made. The only reason stated in the application for condonation of delay is "due to the official correspondence". But the appellants have miserably failed to mention the datewise movement of the file from one table to another table. The same is position of the affidavit of Ranjan Rao, SDO (OP), City Sub -Division, DHBVN Limited, Hisar, which is also silent. with respect to the date -wise movement of the file. The reasons stated in the application taking at their face value carry no conviction at all and under the circumstances of the case, it is not possible for us to hold that there was no negligence, indifference and deliberate inaction to the urgency required in such matters on the part of the officials concerned of the opposite parties. Rather, the only conclusion that can be drawn under the circumstances of the case is that the matter has been dealt with in most casual manner. In case Union of India v. Vijay Laxmi, 2005 4 CPJ 125, the petitioner claimed condonation of 65 days delay in filing the revision petition on the ground that the delay occurred as the matter had to be examined at various levels by the various Government departments. While repelling the prayer made, it was observed that the petitioner had not disclosed the date wise movement of the file from one table to another table. It was further stated that no urgency had been shown from the side of the petitioner and the approach had been casual and for that reason it was not condoned. Under the circumstances, the reasons given in the application were taken as inadequate and insufficient to condone the delay. The ratio of the above mentioned case fully applies to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Therefore, the ground stated in the application cannot constitute sufficient cause so as to condone the delay in filing the appeal as prayed for in the application from the side of the appellants. Therefore, the application for condoantion of delay is rejected.