Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
  • Mr. Amit Lubhaya, Advocate
Judges
  • V.B Gupta, Presiding Member
  • Rekha Gupta, Member
Acts
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
  • Mr. Amit Lubhaya, Advocate
Judges
  • V.B Gupta, Presiding Member
  • Rekha Gupta, Member
Acts
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Concise Structured Summary of the Opinion (Revision Petition No. 923 of 2013)

Factual and Procedural Background

The revision petition (No. 923 of 2013) challenges a final judgment and order dated 28.09.2012 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (the State Commission) in appeal no. 1017 of 2012.

The respondent (original complainant) alleged that her husband, Late Mahinder (Mahendra) Singh, died on 28.06.2011 from an electric shock while operating an agricultural motor in Kotri. Under the Rajiv Gandhi Krishi Sathi Yojna 2009, aid is available to persons who die while engaged in agricultural work. The respondent filed a claim memo on 05.08.2011 claiming Rs. 1,00,000 under that scheme.

The authority (petitioner/Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Chirawa) declined payment on the stated ground that a post mortem report was not submitted with the claim. The respondent submitted other documents (a Gram Panchayat death certificate, panchnama(s), major-nama, and a police enquiry report) asserting the death was due to electric shock while doing agricultural work.

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhunjhunu (District Forum) allowed the complainant's claim by order dated 11.06.2012, directing payment of the aid amount under the scheme within one month. Aggrieved, the petitioner appealed to the State Commission, which by order dated 28.09.2012 upheld the District Forum's decision and dismissed the appeal. The petitioner then filed the present revision petition.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the delay of 59 days in filing the revision petition should be condoned.
  2. Whether the lower fora erred in not applying paragraph 5 of the Rajiv Gandhi Krishi Sathi Yojna requiring submission of a post mortem report with the claim.
  3. Whether the respondent falls within the definition of "consumer" under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
  4. Whether the respondent had provided any consideration to Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Chirawa under the scheme, given the petitioner's contention that the scheme is merely a beneficial provision for agriculturists.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner / Appellant's Arguments

  • Both the District Forum and the State Commission failed to appreciate paragraph 5 of the Rajiv Gandhi Krishi Sathi Yojna, which, petitioner contends, requires a post mortem report to be filed with any claim under the scheme; the respondent did not submit such a report and gave no suitable explanation for that omission.
  • The respondent does not qualify as a "consumer" under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
  • The respondent did not pay any consideration to Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Chirawa under the Rajiv Gandhi Krishi Sathi Yojna of 2009; the petitioner characterizes the benefit as a gratuitous/benevolent scheme rather than a contractual/consideration-based entitlement.
  • Implicit in the petitioning course is that the order of the State Commission should be interfered with on these grounds.

Respondent / Complainant's Position (as recorded)

  • The respondent maintained that the deceased died from electric shock while performing agricultural work and that she had complied with the claim formalities by submitting a Gram Panchayat death certificate, panchnama(s), majornama, and the police enquiry report corroborating the cause of death.
  • The respondent contended the refusal to pay under the scheme amounted to a denial of the relief envisaged by the Rajiv Gandhi Krishi Sathi Yojna and a deficiency in service; she relied on the documentary record submitted to the District Forum.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Ram Lal and Ors. v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361 Emphasizes that showing of "sufficient cause" for delay is a prerequisite; condonation is discretionary under Section 5 and even if sufficient cause is shown the court must decide in discretion whether to condone the delay. The Court relied on this authority to frame the requirement that the petitioner must prove sufficient cause and that even on proof the Court must exercise discretion; lack of sufficient cause justifies dismissal of the condonation application.
R.B. Ramlingam v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, 2009 (2) Scale 108 Confirms the need to examine whether the delay is properly explained and whether the petitioner proceeded with reasonable diligence in prosecuting the appeal/petition. The Court applied the standard of examining whether the petitioner acted with reasonable diligence and found the explanation for the delay inadequate.
Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation, (2010) 5 SCC 459 States that limitation is founded on public policy; courts can condone delay if sufficient cause is shown; "sufficient cause" is elastic; advocates liberal approach for short delays and stricter approach for inordinate delays. The Court relied on this principle to justify a strict scrutiny of the unexplained 59-day delay and to apply a less liberal approach based on the adequacy of explanation and public policy considerations.
Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji, (1987) 2 SCC 107; N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, (1998) 7 SCC 123; Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil, (2001) 9 SCC 106 These authorities are cited for the proposition that while courts may be liberal in condoning short delays, they should adopt a stricter approach when delay is inordinate or inadequately explained. The Court cited these cases to support a stricter approach given the inadequacy of explanation for the period of delay in this matter.
Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) Observes that the special periods of limitation prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act are intended to ensure expeditious adjudication of consumer disputes and that highly belated petitions against consumer fora orders defeat that object. The Court relied on this observation to underscore that consumer matters attract strict attention to limitation and that belated petitions run counter to the object of the Act.
Ravinder Kaur v. Ashok Kumar, AIR 2004 SC 904 Cautions courts to be vigilant against tactics that frustrate enforcement of decrees and to guard against dilatory strategies of judgment-debtors; emphasizes the need for care in dealing with delay and compliance. The Court invoked this authority to justify being careful in permitting belated challenges that would otherwise undermine the orders of consumer fora and the interests of decree/award holders.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court addressed the matter principally as an application for condonation of delay in filing the revision petition (a delay of 59 days). The analysis proceeded as follows:

  1. The Court identified the period of delay (59 days) and examined the explanations provided. The petitioner asserted a departmental decision to file the revision petition dated 17.01.2013 and referred to the receipt of a payment of Rs. 35,000/- before the District Forum on 05.02.2012, but the application for condonation did not state when the impugned order was received by the petitioner and omitted details for the periods 29.09.2012 to 17.01.2013 and 17.01.2013 to 08.03.2013 (the date the revision petition was filed).
  2. The Court found that the application for condonation lacked particulars and that learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to provide further information or justification for the unexplained periods of delay.
  3. Applying established precedent, the Court reiterated that proof of sufficient cause is a precondition to condoning delay and that the court must then exercise discretion; the principles from several Supreme Court decisions (as cited in the opinion) were summarized to emphasize that limitation rules serve public policy and that courts may be liberal for short delays but stricter for inordinate or unexplained delays.
  4. On the facts before it — namely, absence of a coherent account for the entire period of delay and lack of adequate justification — the Court concluded that no sufficient cause had been shown to justify condonation of the 59-day delay.
  5. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay as time-barred and imposed costs of Rs. 10,000, to be deposited to the Consumer Welfare Fund in accordance with Rule 10A of the Consumer Protection Rules, 1987; failure to deposit within four weeks would attract interest at 9% per annum until realization.
  6. The Court fixed a compliance listing for 10th May 2013 for the purpose of deposit/compliance.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The Court held that no sufficient grounds were made out for condoning the 59-day delay in filing the present revision petition and accordingly dismissed the application for condonation of delay as time barred by limitation. The Court ordered the petitioner to pay costs of Rs. 10,000 to the Consumer Welfare Fund under Rule 10A of the Consumer Protection Rules, 1987, within four weeks and directed that interest at 9% per annum would accrue if payment was not made within that period. The matter was listed on 10th May 2013 for compliance.

Implications:

  • Direct effect: The Court refused to condone the delay in filing the revision petition and imposed a monetary cost with a timeline for deposit; the petitioner's application for condonation was dismissed. The order includes enforcement measures (cost deposit and interest for non-compliance) and a compliance listing date.
  • No broader legal principle was newly pronounced by the Court beyond the application of settled precedent on condonation of delay and limitation; the Court applied established authorities to the facts and emphasized the requirement of adequate explanation and diligence when seeking condonation.

Opinion authored/recorded by: V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member; Rekha Gupta, Member (signatures as recorded in the opinion).

Show full summary ...
To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    Secretary Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Chirawa Jhunjhun (Rajasthan) v. Sarbati Devi

    REKHA GUPTA Revision petition no. 923 of 2013 has been filed against the final judgment and order dated 28.09.2012 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (he State Commission in appeal no. 1017 of 2012. The facts of the case as per the respondent/ complainant before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhunujhhunu, Rajasthan (the District Forum) are as follows: The respondent is staying at village Jhanjhot, Tehsil Chirawa. Respondent husband Late Mahinder Singh was running livelihood of his family through doing the work of agriculture. On 28.06.2011, when he was giving water to his crops during that time because the electricity was gone, when the electricity came then he came in Kotri of running the motor of well. Because of current in Kotari husband of the complainant died on the spot. According to the scheme of State Government any person who gets injured, handicap, permanently disabled and die while doing the work of agriculture then the help is provided under Rajiv Gandhi Krishka Sathi Yojna 2009 through wholesale market. The husband of the respondent died while doing the agricultural work therefore, the respondent filed one claim memo on filing the same on 05.08.2011 for the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- because of his demise under Rajiv Gandhi Krishi Sathi Yojna 2009 in the office of non-applicant but the non-applicant kept on giving assurance to pay the amount within one two months only but despite the fact that complainant fulfilled all the formalities, the petitioner/respondent did not make the payment even on demise because of current at the time of doing the work by Late husband Mahender Singh of respondent, only this much is stated by the petitioner that post mortem report is not annexed along with claim form. Therefore, will not pay the amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. The respondent along with his claim memo filed the documents, death certificate of gram panchayat, panchnama of renowned persons, majornama, enquiry report of police station showing that the husband of the respondent died because of current of electricity at the time of doing work. Despite the same the claim of the respondent is dismissed by the petitioner which was not in the interest of justice. The petitioner in their written statement had admitted that the application was made by the respondent but stated that the respondent did not give the post mortem report due to want of the same it was not possible to give relief amount. That the complaint of the respondent was not sustainable. Respondent is not a consumer of the petitioner therefore, complaint is not sustainable. The District Forum in their order dated 11.06.2012 opined that n the present case, the petitioner/ respondent stated that no post mortem report was given but the complainant has submitted along with her application the death certificate of deceased agriculturist Mahendra Singh which was issued by Gram Panchayat, panchnama, panchnama of motbir witnesses (illegible)/ enquiry report of police station and whereby it is proved that farmer Mahendra Singh died due to electric shock in Kotdi at the time when he was going to switch on the motor while doing agricultural work and the respondent by overlooking the same, has gone away from the real objective of Rajiv Gandhi Krishi Sathi Yojna launched by State Government and did not make payment to the complainant on the basis of technical complexities and dismissed her claim application on wrong grounds and which is deficiency in its services. Consequently, the application of the complainant is allowed and the petitioner/respondent ecretary, Krishi Upaj Manhi Samiti, Chirawais directed to make payment of aid amount to complainant under Rajiv Gandhi Krishi Sathi Yojna 2009 due to immediate death the spot/ death of agriculturist Mahendra Singh due to electric shock while doing agricultural work, within a period of one month Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the petitioner herein Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti has filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission vide their order dated 28.09.2010 opined that n the light of facts and circumstances, we do not find any error in the order dated 11.06.2012 passed by learned District Forum, Jhunjhunu. Since, the District Forum has correctly exercised the discretion on the facts available on the record, no ground of interference is made out. Besides this, there seems no substance in the appeal even on merits. Therefore, the order dated 11.06.2012 passed by District Forum, Jhunjhunu in complaint no. 201 of 2011 is upheld and the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed on merit. The complainant shall be entitled to receive the amount deposited with District Forum, Jhunjhunu along with earned benefits. The appellant is granted one month time to comply with the remaining order Dissatisfied by the order of the State Commission, the petitioner filed this present revision petition before us. The main grounds for the revision petition are as follows: - both the Fora below have not appreciated the terms of paragraph no. 5 under the Rajiv Gandhi Krashak Sathi Yojna which lays down the procedure and requirements for any claim under the said scheme. This paragraph clearly lays down that a post mortem report needs to be submitted along with the claim form before the claim authority. It is an admitted fact by the respondent herein that she did not submit any post mortem report and further no suitable clarifications have been given by her as to why she was unable to submit a post mortem report. - the respondent herein is not covered under the definition of a consumer within the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. - the respondent did not pay any consideration to Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Chirawa under the Rajiv Gandhi Krashak Sathi Yojana of 2009 and the compensation to be provided was merely a beneficial scheme for agriculturists. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the records of the case carefully. There is a delay of 59 days in filing the present revision petition before us. The reasons given for the delay in the application for condonation of delay are as follows: he impugned judgment was rendered on 28.09.2012. A decision was taken by the department to file the revision petition on 17.01.2013. The receipt of payment of Rs.35,000/- before the District Forum, Jhunjhunu in compliance of order dated 11.06.2012 received on 05.02.2012. Thereafter the revision petition was filed. For the reasons mentioned above, as such the delay in filing the Special Leave Petition may be condoned In the application for condonation of delay it has not been mentioned when the order was received by the petitioner. In fact, there are no details and no explanation given for the period between 29.09.2012 to 17.01.2013 and thereafter from 17.01.2013 to 08.03.2013 when the revision petition was filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not give any further information nor reasons or justification to account for the delay. It is well settled that ufficient causefor condoning the delay in each case is a question of fact. In Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, it has been observed; t is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by S.5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the enquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant. In R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, 2009 (2) Scale 108, it has been observed: e hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition. Honle Supreme Court after exhaustively considering the case law on the aspect of condonation of delay observed in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation reported in (2010) 5 SCC 459 as under; e have considered the respective submissions. The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The legislature does not prescribe limitation with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that they do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek remedy without delay. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a period fixed by the legislature. To put it differently, the law of limitation prescribes a period within which legal remedy can be availed for redress of the legal injury. At the same time, the courts are bestowed with the power to condone the delay, if sufficient cause is shown for not availing the remedy within the stipulated time. The expression "sufficient cause" employed in Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 and similar other statutes is elastic enough to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which sub serves the ends of justice. Although, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in dealing with the applications for condonation of delay, this Court has justifiably advocated adoption of a liberal approach in condoning the delay of short duration and a stricter approach where the delay is inordinate - Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji (1987)2 SCC 107, N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy. (1998) 7 SCC 123 and 10 Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil (2001) 9 SCC 106 The Apex Court in Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) has observed ; t is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the consumer foras In Ravinder Kaur Vs. Ashok Kumar, AIR 2004 SC 904, Apex Court observed: Courts of law should be careful enough to see through such diabolical plans of the judgment debtor to deny the decree holders the fruits of the decree obtained by them. These type of errors on the part of the judicial forum only encourage frivolous and cantankerous litigations causing law delay and bringing bad name to the judicial system. Accordingly, no sufficient grounds are made out for condoning the delay of 59 days in filing the present revision petition. In the above circumstances, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed being time barred by limitation with cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only). Petitioner is directed to deposit the cost by way of demand draft in the name of onsumer Welfare Fundas per Rule 10 A of Consumer Protection Rules, 1987, within four weeks from today. In case the petitioner fails to deposit the said cost within the prescribed period, then it shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum till realisation. List on 10th May 2013 for compliance. ......................J

    V.B. GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... REKHA GUPTA MEMBER

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Secretary Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Chirawa Jhunjhun (Rajasthan) v. Sarbati Devi
    (Apr 5, 2013)