PROJECT DIRECTOR D R D A Vs. BOMMI REDDY LAKSHMI REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application, the petitioner seeks condonation of delay of 470 days in preferring FA. SR. No.2423/1997 questioning the order dated 16.4.1996 of the District Forum at Cuddapah in O. P. No.188/1995 allowing the said OP preferred by the 1st respondent herein, and directing the appellant herein to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- and costs of Rs.300/- within one month from the date of the said order.

(2.) It is not in dispute that the order was made on 16.4.1996. It is seen from the copy of the order filed alongwith the appeal that it was despatched in May, 1996. The reason for the delay is stated by the present Project Director of the D. R. D. A. , Cuddapah as follows: "this order has been passed on 16.4.1996 and it was despatched on 9.5.1996 to the then Government Pleader K. Sudarshan Reddy. The then Government Pleader did not send the copy of the order to our office. When the case was pending before the District Consumers Forum, the Project Director is different and our office was not in know of the disposal of the O. P.188/ 1995, till we received E. P. notice. I submit the 1st respondent herein filed E. P. No.24/1997 and the District Consumers Forum issued a notice, which was received in my office on 10.9.1997 and I directed my office to search for the concerned file. The office staff searched for the file and found in the file, no copy of the District Consumers Forum order. Then I applied for a certified copy of the order and the same was furnished on 11.19.1997, and immediately I sent my Asst. Project Officer, G. Gopal to Hyderabad for preferring the appeal by the Government Pleader. So in this appeal there is a delay of 470 days. The delay is not wanton or wilful. "

(3.) The learned Government Pleader for the petitioner, Mr. S. Ranga Reddy, states that the deponent of the affidavit dated 28.9.1997 in support of the present application was not the Project Director when order dated 16.4. l996 was made in the O. P. Therefore, it cannot be within his personal knowledge whether the then Government Pleader, Mr. K. Sudarshan Reddy sent a copy of the order to their office or not - admittedly the order was received by the then Government Pleader on 9.5.1996 itself. No affidavit of the said Government Pleader was filed. He could not also state whether the then Project Director was not aware about the disposal of O. P. No.188/1995. It is also not stated when exactly the application was made, the date on which the application was made for a copy of the order which was furnished on 11.9.1997. Under the circumstances, we find that there is no proper explanation for the delay in presenting the appeal and that no sufficient cause is made out for condoning the delay. The learned Counsel, no doubt seeks to rely on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana V/s. Chandramani and Others, 1996 3 SCC 132, and also on an another judgment of the Supreme Court in Special Telisildar, Land Acquisition, Kerala V/s. K. V. Ayisumma, (1996) 10 Supreme Court Cases 634. But those cases did not deal with the special provisions under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ('the Act" for short), wherein the time provided for preferring an appeal to the State Commission is only thirty days under Sec.15 of the Act. The time provided for preferring an appeal to the National Commission and to the Apex Court also is only thirty days under Sections 19 and 23 respectively. In para 4 of the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act, it is specifically stated that "to provide speedy and simple redressal to consumer disputes, a quasi judicial machinery is sought to be set up at District, State and Central levels. If such is the objective for which these Tribunals are constituted, it will be incumbent upon the various agencies to organise themselves in such a manner that delays are avoided in every respect. It is the duty of these agencies to set up machineries for expeditious dealing of these matters. In State of Haryana V/s. Chandramani and Others, the Supreme Court observed as follows: "the Government at appropriate level should constitute legal cells Is to examine the cases whether any legal principles are involved for decision by the Courts or whether cases require adjustment and should authorise the officers to take decision or give appropriate permission for settlement. In the event of decision to file appeal the needed prompt action should be pursued by the officer responsible to file the appeal and he should be made personally responsible for lapses, if any. Equally, the State cannot be put on the same footing as an individual. The individual would always be quick in taking the decision whether he would pursue the remedy by way of an appeal or application since he is a person legally injured while State is an impersonal machinery working through its officers or servants".