BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 287 of 2019
Date of Institution : 04.06.2019
Date of Order : 27.2.2020
Shailja Goyal, aged about 35 years wife of Sh. Sumit Goyal son of Sh. Harbans Lal, resident of Gobind Nagar, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
Versus.
1. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Sub-Division City Sirsa, through SDO ‘OP’, Tehsil and Distt. Sirsa.
2. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Sirsa through Superintendent Engineer, District Sirsa.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI R.L. AHUJA………………….. PRESIDENT
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR…………..MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Amit Goyal, Advocate for complainant/ applicant.
Sh. K.K. Relan, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
Heard on the application for condonation of delay moved on behalf of applicant/ complainant.
2. It is averred in the application that earlier, the complaint/ application with regard to same subject matter in between same parties was filed before the Permanent Lok Adalat for Public Utility Services, Sirsa, but due to non availability of the Chairman of the PLA, Sirsa, the same could not be decided on merits and therefore same has been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 20.12.2018 with permission to file fresh complaint. It is further averred that it is pertinent to mention here that this is the second complaint before this Forum as the first complaint has been dismissed as withdrawn on some technical ground vide order dated 22.2.2019. The reason for delay if any is fully explained above and in view of the genuineness of the delay and as per rule of law laid down by the various superior courts and forums, the delay, if any is liable to be condoned.
3. In reply to application, it has been submitted on behalf of opposite parties that complaint is liable to be dismissed being time barred. No complaint or case was filed by complainant in any court before this complaint. One Sumit Goyal son of Shri Harbans Lal filed an application before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Sirsa which was dismissed as withdrawn on 20.12.2018, in which it was mentioned that only petitioner is at liberty to file the fresh petition/ suit but no relaxation regarding limitation was granted by PLA and by the Forum to above said Sumit Goyal. Now fresh complaint has been filed by Shailja Goyal before this Forum which is neither sustainable nor maintainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be dismissed being time barred. No genuineness of delay has been given by complainant in the application. Hence, delay is not liable to be condoned.
4. For deciding the application in hand, the brief facts of the present complaint are relevant to be discussed here. The present complainant Shailja Goyal has filed this complaint with the averments that applicant is consumer of the ops and having electricity connection bearing no. T-12-TT-394725 in her name and had been paying consumption charges regularly. The ops issued the bill dated 18.12.2015 for period 4.11.2015 to 4.12.2015 and total consumption of the units was shown as 191 i.e. old reading 25393 and new reading 25584. Thereafter, the applicant got extended the load and old meter was replaced with new three phase meter and ops issued the bill dated 22.2.2016 for period starting from 4.11.2015 to 2.2.2016 and total consumption of the units was shown 823.6 i.e. old meter reading 35393 to 25662 and total consumption of old meter was shown as 269 and total consumption of new meter was shown as 554.6. But as per bill ‘Annexure A’ the applicant paid consumption charges of old meter up to reading 25584 but ops mentioned the old reading in the bill Annexure B as 25393 i.e. difference of 191 units. However, applicant filed a written complaint with ops vide Book No.647 page no.42 dated 17.3.2016 but ops did not pay any heed towards this complaint. The applicant paid the amount under the bills Annexure A and B vide receipt dated 26.12.2015 and 17.3.2016. It is further averred that it is pertinent to mention here that meanwhile, the ops issued another bill dated 20.1.2016 for period starting from 4.12.2015 to 2.1.2016 and meter reading starting from 25584 to NIL i.e. said bill was issued without checking the meter reading by the meter reader but the bill sent by leveling minimum charges etc. for an amount of Rs.5483/-. The applicant filed a complaint to the ops vide book/ page no.713/97 dated 29.1.2016 but the ops have not resolved the matter rather they are harassing the applicant and are threatening to disconnect the electricity connection and applicant has suffered wrongful loss. That conduct of the ops was not stopped here and they further issued a bill dated 14.4.2016 for period starting from 2.2.2016 to 2.4.2016 and meter reading starting from 560 and ending on 616 only i.e. for consumption of units of 56 only and they imposed the amount of Rs.4097/- i.e. on account of minimum charges etc. The meter reader did not record the meter reading but this bill was got issued without recording the meter reading in routine manner. The applicant again filed a written complaint with ops on 27.4.2016 vide complaint book/ page no.5059/ 033 but the same has not been resolved till today. It is further averred that ops issued bill dated 9.5.2016 for period starting from 2.4.2016 to 2.5.2016 and meter reading starting from 616 and ending on 1013 i.e. for consumption of 397 units and they imposed amount of Rs.5296/- including amount of arrear. It is pertinent to mention here that bill Annexure ‘F’ was issued without recording the meter reading and thereafter minimum charges were imposed upon applicant and due to this act of ops the next bill Annexure H has shown very high meter reading i.e. consumption of 397 units in one month and slab rate gone very high and applicant is liable to be compensated for the same after correcting the bills. It is further averred that wrongful act and conduct of ops did not stop here and they further issued bills dated 8.6.2016 and 8.7.2016 and ops have also added the amount of arrear of disputed bill against which the complaints were pending and now the ops are adamant to disconnect the electricity connection with immediate effect. The applicant further filed complaints on 20.5.2016, 22.6.2016 and recently on 15.7.2016 but ops have not resolved the same till today. It is further averred that in between, complainant has paid entire amount to the ops under protest just to save disconnection and applicant again approached the ops and requested to correct the bills but the ops flatly refused to admit the claim of applicant. That as to the above mentioned dispute, no case has so far been filed by applicant in any court/ Forum nor any case to her knowledge has been filed against her by ops as to the matter in dispute except the application under Section 22 C of the Indian Legal Services Authority before PLA for PSU, Sirsa and due to retirement of earlier chairman and non appointment of new chairman till today, this petition has been got dismissed as withdrawn by applicant with permission to file fresh.
3. It appears from the contents of the complaint that matter qua dispute of electricity bills started from 18.12.2015 when ops served a bill to the applicant/ complainant for the period 4.11.2015 to 4.12.2015 and since then number of bills have been issued by ops to the complainant/ consumer Shailja Goyal. It is an admitted fac ton record that Shailja Goyal is consumer of the ops and her husband Sumit Goyal is not a consumer of ops. Earlier petition was filed by husband of complainant namely Sumit Goyal before Permanent Lok Adalat, Sirsa which was later on dismissed as withdrawn. The record reveals that Shailja Goyal present complainant/ applicant never filed any petition before Permanent Lok Adalat, Sirsa nor she got same withdrawn. Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides as under:-
24A. Limitation period-
- The District Forum, 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.
- Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, 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: Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.
5. As per above said Section 24A of the Act, the complaint was to be filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action and delay, if any can only be condoned where complainant proves sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within stipulated period of two years. But since complainant did not file any complaint/ application earlier before any Forum/ authority after accrual of cause of action in year 2015 and now present complaint has been filed by her on 4.6.2019 though an earlier complaint filed by complainant on 20.2.2.2019 was got dismissed as withdrawn on 27.2.2019, so it appears from contents of complaint as well as documents on record that complainant has failed to prove any sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within stipulated period of two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. So, complaint of complainant is hopelessly time barred.
6. In view of our above discussion, application of complainant for condonation of delay does not appear to be maintainable and same is hereby dismissed. Consequently, complaint filed by complainant is also dismissed but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:27.2.2020. Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
