- (1.) THIS appeal is preferred against the order dated 16.9.2003 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kaithal whereby while accepting the complaint of respondent - complainant, following relief was granted: "Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, we come to the conclusion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the respondent Nos. 1, 2. So, in the interest of justice, Rs. 30,000 is awarded as compensation for the deficient services provided by the respondents including the escalation costs of construction and Rs. 5,000 is awarded as compensation for harassment and mental agony including the costs of the complaint. The respondents are further directed to overhaul the deposited amount of the complainant in his account. Complaint is accepted qua respondent Nos. 1, 2. Compliance of this order shall be made within 30 days from the date of order." Heard.
(2.) THERE is delay of 128 days in filing of the present appeal and the condonation of which has been sought by moving an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The application is accompanied with an affidavit of Mr. Sanjay Rai, HCS, Sub -divisional Officer (Civil) -cum -Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Kaithal.
(3.) WHILE dealing with the application for condonation of delay, it cannot be ignored that the delay cannot be condoned on the ground of equity and generosity but at the same time it can be taken into consideration that in case of any legal infirmity committed by the District Consumer Forum while passing the impugned, order, which is apparent on record, the same cannot be allowed to continue as it would amount to no order in the eyes of law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with such a controversy has held that when the substantial justice and technical approach are pitted against each other, the former has to be preferred. It has further been held that the words "sufficient cause" have to be interpreted to advance the cause of justice. Reliance may be placed to the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Nagaland v. Lipok A.O. and Others, 2005 3 SLT 455, as under: "11. What constitutes sufficient cause cannot be held down by hard and fast rules. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Shanti Misra, 1975 2 SCC 840, this Court held that discretion given by Section 5 should not be defined or crystallized so as to convert a discretionary matter into a rigid rule of law. The expression "sufficient cause" should receive a liberal construction. In Brij Inder Singh v. Kanshi Ram,1918 45 ILR(Cal) 94, it was observed that true guide for a Court to exercise the discretion under Section 5 is whether the appellant acted with reasonable diligence in prosecuting the appeal. In Shakuntala Devi Jain v. Kuntal Kumari, 1969 AIR(SC) 575a Bench of three -Judge had held that unless want of bona fides of such inaction or negligence as would deprive a party of the protection of Section 5 is proved, the application must not be thrown out or any delay cannot be refused to be condoned.";