Delhi

North East

CC/275/2016

MADAN GOPAL SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

B.S.E.S. YAMUNA POWER LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

11 Sep 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 275/16

 

In the matter of:

 

	Shri Madan Gopal Sharma S/o Shri Babu Ram Sharma R/o:- H.No. 251, Gali No. 6, Karawal Nagar Road Bhagat Vihar, Delhi-110094	Complainant
	Versus
	BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. Division Karawal Nagar New Delhi-110053	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:       JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION      :

17.10.2016 11.09.2020 11.09.2020

 

Mr. Arun Kumar Arya, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

ORDER

1. The complainant is consumer of OP by virtue of his deceased mother Ram Rati Sharma holding electricity connection vide CA no. 101547659 energized by OP at her premises since December 1998 and complainant using the said connection to avail electricity facility. The electricity meter installed at complainant’s premises got burnt on 04.01.2011 for which the complainant had lodged a complaint with OP on 05.01.2011 vide complaint no. E12511010312 but OP did not change the meter and it was only after almost two years that OP installed a new meter in the complainant’s premises on 31.12.2012 for which reason, the complainant had to stay without electricity from January 2011 to December 2012 despite which the OP raised a bill of Rs. 14,370/- on the complainant in the month of February 2013 for the said period in which there was no electricity connection but still the complainant paid the said bill to the tune of Rs. 10,870/- on 01.04.2013 to OP after getting rebate on the Late Payment Surcharge (LPSC) thereon to the tune of Rs. 3,500/-. Thereafter, OP raised a bill of Rs. 3,100/- on the complainant for the month of September 2015 against which the complainant vide written representation dated 06.10.2015 to OP raised protest and the bill was revised to the amount of Rs. 1050/- which was then paid by complainant. However, the dispute arose when OP sent a disconnection notice dated 08.09.2016  u/s 56(1) of Electricity Act 2003 to the complainant demanding payment of outstanding amount of Rs. 63,304.16 whereas the bill dated 17.09.2016 following the said notice was for Rs. 950/- which the complainant paid to OP and lastly when the OP raised a bill of Rs. 4,310/- on the complainant for the month of October 2016, the complainant was compelled to file the present complaint against OP praying of issuance of direction against OP to refund Rs. 10,870/- paid by him to OP in 2013 alongwith compensation of Rs. 40,000/- for delayed installation of electricity meter which forced the complainant to stay without electricity for almost two years and Rs. 30,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and Rs. 19,130/- towards litigation cost.
2. Complainant has attached copy of bill dated 19.02.2013 of Rs. 14,370/- raised by OP including arrears of Rs. 3,500/-, payment receipt of Rs. 10,870/- issued by OP to the complainant against payment of the said bill, copy of bill dated 20.09.2015 raised by OP to the tune of Rs. 3,100/- reflecting arrears of Rs. 2,793/-, copy of letter dated 06.10.2015 by complainant to OP against the said bill, copy of disconnection notice dated 08.09.2016 by OP to complainant asking for payment of outstanding dues of Rs. 6,304/-, copy of bill dated 17.09.2016 for Rs. 950/- reflecting arrears of Rs. 2725/-, copy of death certificate of the consumer Ram Rati Sharma issued by MCD, government of NCT and original bill dated 20.10.2016 raised by OP on the complainant for a sum of Rs. 4,310/- including arrears of Rs. 3,500/-.
3. Notice was issued to the OP on 10.11.2016. OP entered appearance and filed its written statement vide which it took the preliminary objection that complainant is not their registered consumer since the electricity connection was in the name of Ram Rati Sharma and complainant did not make any efforts to get the name change in the records of OP as per provision lay down in Delhi Electricity Supply Code and Performance Standards Regulations 2007 and therefore neither did he have any locus standi nor privity of contract with OP to file the present complaint. OP resisted the complaint as being time barred in as much as it has been filed in 2016 whereas the subject matter of dispute has been raised for the period 2011-2012. OP further objected to its maintainability on grounds of no cause of action having arisen against it and took the defence that the bill of Rs. 14,370/- dated February 2013 was raised for the period February 2011 to February 2013 and OP had given a rebate of Rs. 3,500/- towards LPSC to complainant against the said bill and the complainant therefore paid Rs. 10,870/- towards the said bill to OP in April 2013. Thereafter bills of Zero amount were raised on complainant between April 2013 to February 2014 but reading were continuously taken from the meter installed and because the complainant / consumer continued to use electricity  during the said period, bill of Rs. 4,310/- was raised on the complainant in October 2016 in which Rs. 1,212/- were actual consumption charges and Rs. 3,500/- were the arrears from February 2013 to February 2014. OP stated that the complainant had not paid any amount since last one year. On merits, OP controverted the complaint by submitting that on receiving report of burnt meter by the complainant, its representatives visited complainant’s premises several times but the same were found lock after which the complainant never visited the OP office for change of meter. Lastly, OP submitted that since LPSC benefit / rebate of Rs. 3,500/- was given to complainant twice by mistake in April 2013 and thereafter, bills of Rs. 0/- were raised on him between April 2013 till February 2014 not to be paid and October 2016 bill was generated for Rs. 4,310/- reflecting arrears of Rs. 3,500/- which was debited from the consumer’s account. For the defence so taken, OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. Rejoinder in rebuttal to defence taken by OP was filed by the complainant in which complainant submitted that the disconnection notice was illegal and without any reasonable cause since the complainant has been regularly paying the bills but OP kept raising illegal bills and lastly when such a bill was raised in October 2016, the complainant was compelled to file the present complaint since OP has been leveling false allegation on him.
5. Evidence by way of affidavit and written arguments were filed by both parties in reassertion / reiteration of their respective grievance / defence in the light of documents filed and exhibited by both sides.

We have heard the argument addressed by both parties through video conferencing and have given our anxious consideration to the documents placed on record. By complainant’s own admission and non-rebuttal thereto by OP regarding death of Smt Ram Rati Sharma as established from her death certificate placed on record, mother of the complainant and the registered consumer of OP, the complainant being her legal heir is deemed to be the consumer / customer of OP and therefore is competent to file and prosecute the present complaint as being user of electricity vide CA no. 101547659 installed in his premises. Therefore this preliminary objection taken by OP is dismissed, however with the direction to the complainant to get the name changed in the records of OP for all future purposes to avoid unnecessary complications that may arise in future. In so far as the objection taken by OP of complaint being time barred is concerned since complainant is agitating a case and seeking relief for bills and grievance pertaining to year 2011-2012 in 2016, we have observed that both parties have acknowledged that the meter installed in complainant’s premises was burnt in the beginning of 2011 and a new meter was installed in December 2012 after which a bill of Rs. 14,370/-was raised in February 2013 against which the complainant had paid Rs. 10,870/- in April 2013 to OP after availing of LPSC rebate of Rs. 3,500/-. The complainant vide the present complaint filed in October 2016 has prayed for refund of the said amount i.e. Rs. 10,870/- paid in April 2013 for bill raised in February 2013 as well as compensation for delayed installation of meter for which he had to stay without electricity in 2011-2012. Therefore, the moot question governing the aforementioned relief prayed for is whether the same are within limitation. The law of limitation in Consumer Protection Act is covered under Section 24A of the said Act.

Section 24A of CPA deals with the limitation period for complaints to be filed within two years from the date on which cause of action has arisen and contains a negative legislative mandate against admission of a complaint which has been filed after two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. In other words the Consumer Forums do not have the jurisdiction to entertain a complaint if the same is not filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. The law on the said issue has been clearly settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in so far as the nature and scope of Section 24A is concerned in the landmark judgments of Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co. Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd (2009) 7 SCC 768, State Bank of India Vs B S Agricultural Industries (2009) 5 SCC 121 and V. N. Shrikhande (Dr) Vs Anita Sena Fernandes (2011) 1 SCC 53. The Hon’ble National Commission in the judgment of Jansatta Sahkari Awas Samati Ltd Vs Kone Elevators India Pvt Ltd I (2016) CPJ 190 NC held that mere sending a legal notice does not constitute a cause of action nor does it extend a period of limitation prescribed in the Act in view of settled proposition of law under Section 24A of CPA as mandatory in nature as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.S. Agriculture Case (Supra) in which the Hon’ble Apex Court took the view that Section 24A is preemptory in nature and requires consumer Forums to see before it adjudicates the complaint that it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. The Hon’ble National Commission in the Judgment of Punjab Small Industries and Export Corporation Ltd and Anr. Vs Satinder Pal Singh II (2018) CPJ 245 (NC) has held that the complainant remaining inactive and suddenly sending legal notice to OP cannot entitle him for waiver of limitation period as any amount of correspondence cannot extend limitation period. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in BS Agricultural Industries (Supra) case held the view that it is the duty of the Consumer Forum to take notice of section 24A and give effect to it. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan Vs M. Krishnamurthy VII (1998) SLT 334 laid down that law of limitation is enshrined in the maxim interest republic up sit finis Mum (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation) and that it fixes a life span for such legal remedy for redressal of legal injury so that precious time which is wasted would never revisit. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time to see that party do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Basavraj & Anr. Vs The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer 2013 AIR SCW 6510 held that sufficient cause means adequate and enough reasons which prevented the applicant to approach the within limitation and party should not have acted in negligent manner or for want of bonafides. It is a settled legal proposition that law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. A court has no power to ignore that provision to relieve what it considers a distress resulting from its operation. The statutory provision may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same. The legal maxim “dura lex sed lex” which means “the law is hard but it is the law” stands attracted in such a situation as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Basavraj (Supra) case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) observed that while dealing with such cases of delay, the court has to keep in mind the special period of limitation as prescribed under Section 24A of Consumer Protection Act 1986 and the object of expeditious adjudication and speedy redressal of consumer dispute will get defeated if this court was to entertain highly belated such like complaints in routine manner without any specific reasons supported by material as is squarely applicable in the present case.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal (Supra), Cicily Kallarackal Vs Vehicle Factory IV (2012) CPJ I (SC) , R.B. Ramalingam Vs R.B. Bhavaneshwary I (2009) SLT 701 and Ram Lal Vs Rewa Coalfields Ltd AIR 1962SC 361 held that while deciding an application for condonation of delay, the court has to keep in mind the special period of limitation prescribed under Consumer Protection Act 1986 and whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence and has explained the delay properly with emphasis on necessity to show sufficient cause since the proof of sufficient cause is a condition precedent for exercise of discretionary jurisdiction for condoning delay. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bikram Dass Vs Financial Commissioner and Ors AIR 1977 SC 1221 held that Limitation Act is a hard task master and judicial interpretation has encased it within a narrow compass. Therefore a litigant who is not vigilant about his right must explain every days delay. Sufficient cause has been explained by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Basavraj and Anr Vs The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer 2013 AIR SCW 6510 as that delay was due to bonafide on the part of party and that party has not acted in a negligent manner or remain inactive; therefore meaning adequate and enough reasons which prevented the applicant to approach the court within limitation. The above ratios of Hon'ble Apex court were followed by Hon'ble National Commission in State of Haryana Vs Santra, Anita I (2019) CPJ 211 (NC), Eclectic Developers Pvt Vs. Smita Datta Makhija II (2019) CPJ 545 (NC), Punjab State Power Corp. Ltd Vs. Lal Sarn Dass Sarve Hitkari School I (2019) CPJ 500 (NC) and Uttar Pradesh Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad Vs Gurmeet Kaur II (2019) CPJ 19 (NC). In Rishi Prabhat Vs. DDA AIR 1995 DEL 9, Hon'ble Delhi SCDRC held that after expiry of limitation period each day’s delay has to be explained. The Hon'ble National Commission in Jashomatinandan Das Vs State Bank of India (2006) 3 CPR 406 (NC) held in a case where the complaint was filed after three years of knowledge of cause of action that such a complaint was barred by limitation and upheld the decision of Hon'ble State Commission.

The complainant could have agitated the said bill and payment made thereagainst till April 2015 as provided u/s 24A of Consumer Protection Act which provides for two years statutory period of limitation for filing a complaint from the cause of action which in the present case arose in April 2013 when the said amount was paid by complainant and ended in April 2015. Further, the aspect of burnt meter and non-installation of a new one as discussed above was pertaining to period January 2011 to December 2012 for which the complainant is seeking compensation in 2016 and therefore even this relief prayed for is time barred as per the mandate of Section 24A and therefore prayer / relief sought in serial no. 1 and 2 cannot be entertained or allowed as are hit by limitation. However, on merits and covered within limitation are the aspects of the disconnection notice dated 08.09.2016 as well as the bill dated 20.10.2016 of Rs. 4,310/- raised by OP on the complainant. On specific query raised on OP during the course of oral arguments to justify the amount of Rs. 6,304/- demanded by OP in the said disconnection notice when the subsequent bill dated 17.09.2016 was raised for amount of Rs. 950/-, OP could not justify or establish or explain the said demand quantification. Further, OP was asked to explain the discrepancy in the amount of arrears in the bill dated 20.09.2015 refelcting Rs. 2,793/- as arrears, bill dated 17.09.2016 reflecting Rs. 2,725/- as arrears and subsequent bill dated 20.10.2016 showing arrears of Rs. 3,516/- withvarying LPSC charged too in the said bills. Both parties though acknowledged that the last bill of October 2016 of Rs. 4,310/- has been paid and settled. Nonetheless after due appreciation of the facts and documents placed on record, we are of the considered view that the complainant has been put to harassment and mental tension due to deficiency of service on the part of OP who have raised bills showing conflicting amounts of arrears and LPSC for the period of 2015-2016 and uncalled for disconnection notice dated 08.09.2016 on the complainant demanding payment of Rs. 6,304/- which could not be explained by OP and several discrepancies in the bills raised by it on the complainant in 2016 in terms of LPSC and arrears which compelled the complainant to file the present case and incur legal expenses. We therefore, holding OP guilty deficiency of service, partly allow the present complaint limited only to the extent of it being covered under limitation in so far as the disputed demand notice dated 08.09.2016 and conflicting arrears / LPSC is concerned and therefore quash the demand bill dated 08.09.2016 as erroneous and bad in law and direct OP to pay a compensation of Rs. 7,000/- to the complainant towards mental harassment inclusive of litigation charges. Let the order be complied with by OP within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

6.  Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per Regulation  21 (1) of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
7.   File be consigned to record room.
8.   Announced on 11.09.2020

 

(Arun Kumar Arya)      President

(Sonica Mehrotra)  Member