Haryana

Charkhi Dadri

CC/38/2024

Mahipal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Bal bishan

13 Mar 2024

ORDER

                   Mahipal Vs. DHBVNL             CC-38/2024

Present-          Sh.  Bal Kishan , Adv. for complainant.

                        Heard on the point of maintainability of the present complaint and perused that the documents attached with the complaint.

                        Shri.Mansa Ram (deceased) father of complainant had applied for tubewell connection and deposited  Rs.500/- on 31.10.2012. Shri Mansa Ram father of complainant died on 25.12.2015 ( but complainant mentioned date of death in complaint  on 12.01.2016). Legal heirs and representative of Shri Mansa Ram  have right to get release the tubewell connection applied for. The Complainant averred that he had time and again visited in the office  of SDO operation sub Division, DHBVN, Atela Kalan and made representation/ request for releasing the tubewell connection  on 18.06.2020 and again on  24.05.2022 (but complainant mentioned the date 24.05.2023).  The complainant mentioned that no action was taken by OPs to release the tubewell connection.

                        It has been revealed from the information/documents placed before this Commission that there is no correspondence  between DHBVNL and Shri Mansa Ram  complainant from 31.10.2012 to 18.06.2020. However the complainant being legal heir tried to revive this old issue of tubewell connection. However, the same does not fall in ambit of Cosumer Protection Act being time barred and there is no sufficient cause for not filing  the complaint within prescribed  time frame.

                        We have observed that the present complaint has been filed by the complainant before this Commission on 06.03.2023. Section 69 (Limitation Period) of The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 says that the District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen or further could satisfy this Commission that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period.

The said clause is reproduced below:-

 

 

69. Limitation period

1.  The  District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.
2. Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisifies the District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing  the complaint within such period.

                        We have observed that in the present case, the complainant has failed to bring on record any document to satisfy this Commission that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within two years. Hence, the present complaint deserves dismissal. Therefore, we hereby dismiss the present complaint of complainant being not maintainable under Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

                        File be consigned to the record-room, after due compliance.