Haryana

StateCommission

A/145/2016

AMRITBALA - Complainant(s)

Versus

DHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

R.D.YADAV

14 Mar 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA,PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No.145 of 2016

       Date of Institution: 16.02.2016        

Date of Decision: 14.03.2016

Amritbala wife of Shri Ram Niwas, resident of Konsiwas, Tehsil and District Rewari (Haryana).

     …..Appellant

                                                Versus

1.      Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. through SDO, Sub Urban Jhajjar Road, Rewari, Tehsil and Distt. Rewari.

2.      SDO, Sub Urban, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd, Jhajjar Road, Rewari,Tehsil and Distt. Rewari.

         …..Respondents

CORAM:   Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.
                   Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.

Present:-    Mr.Naresh Kumar proxy counsel for Mr.R.D.Yadav, Advocate for the appellant.

                                      O R D E R

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          It was alleged by the complainant that she applied for domestic electricity connection in the year 2000 at her residence.  An electricity connection bearing No.SS-11/1864 was issued to her, but, connection was not released at the site as the earth wire was not connected and opposite parties (O.Ps.) started issuing electricity bills of Rs.29,133/-, which was illegal and wrong.  She requested O.Ps. not to charge the above-said bill and also to restore the connection, but, they did not restore the connection.

 

2.      O.Ps. filed reply controverting her averments and alleged that connection No.SS-11/1864 was installed on the premises of the complainant in the month of Dec. 2001.  She did not deposit any amount of the bills and as  such connection was disconnected in the month of December 2006 and an amount of Rs.29,133/- was outstanding against her.

3.      After hearing both the parties learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rewari (In short “District Forum”) dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated 22.01.2016.

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefreom appellants-O.Ps. have preferred this appeal.

5.      Arguments heard.  File perused.

6.      Firstly it is to be seen whether the complaint was filed in time or not.  If the complaint is time barred there is no necessity to give findings on the merits. Honble Supreme Court has opined in State Bank of India Vs. M/s B.S. Agricultural Industries (I) reported in 2009(2) CPJ 1, that if the complaint is barred by time and yet, the consumer forum decides the complaint on merits, the Forum would be committing an illegality and therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside.

7.      As per facts mentioned above, it is clear that complainant applied for electricity connection under domestic category in the year 2000. It is not disputed that connection of the complainant was disconnected in the year 2006, whereas the complaint was filed in 2016. As per facts mentioned above, it is clear that cause of action accrued in 2006, whereas complaint has been filed in 2016. She was supposed to file complaint within two years as per Section-24 A  of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (In short “Act”).  So the complaint is highly belated.  It has no where come on the file that complainant filed an application to condone delay in filing complaint. When no application for condonation of delay was filed and delay was not condoned, complaint was not maintainable.  When complaint is time barred the same is liable to be dismissed only on this ground as opined by Hon’ble National Commission in revision petition No.2394 of 2011 titled as  Uday Shankar Varma Vs. Continental Airlines Inc. decided on 04^th July, 2013.  Relevant portion is as under:-

“Admittedly, in the present case the cause of action has accrued to the complainant on 18.2.2008, when the complainant lodged his complaint with the opposite parties for the missing of his luggage at New Delhi Airport, whereas he has filed the present complaint before the District Forum, Gurgaon on 10.5.2010. It is also an admitted case of the complainant that he has filed the complaint before the District Forum, New Delhi which was withdrawn by him on 27.4.2010 and at the time of withdrawal, no liberty was granted to the complainant to file a fresh complaint before the District Forum, Gurgaon on the same cause of action. It was a simpliciter withdrawal of the complaint, which was allowed by the District Forum, New Delhi to file a fresh complaint. It is nowhere pleaded or sought by the complainant that he wants to file a fresh complaint before the District Forum, Gurgaon. Thus under the circumstances, when the complainant was put up before the District Forum, Gurgaon, it was already time barred because cause of action has accrued to the complainant on 18.2.2008 and the fresh complaint before the District Forum, Gurgaon was filed on 10.5.2010. It was further admitted case of the parties that no application was filed by the complainant under Section 14 (2) of the Limitation Act seeking the condonation of delay for agitating the matter before the Forum, which had no jurisdiction to try the complainant. In the absence of any application, the District Forum, Gurgaon was left with no other option, but to dismiss the complaint as time barred. As per the provisions of Section 24A (1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, no complaint can be entertained by the District Forum after the expiry of the period of two years from the date of accruing of the cause of action, unless there is sufficient reason to condone the delay in filing the complaint is filed or District Forum condoned the delay.

8.      This case is squarely covered by this opinion. Admittedly, the present complaint was filed by the complainant before the District Forum after a gap of more than 06 years from accruing cause of action, which on the face of it appears to be hopelessly time barred.

9.           The findings of the learned District Forum are well reasoned based on law and facts and cannot be disturbed. Resultantly appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed in limine.

March 14th, 2016    Urvashi Agnihotri                             R.K.Bishnoi,                                                                         Member                                             Judicial Member                                                                   Addl. Bench                                                Addl.Bench              

S.K.