Haryana

StateCommission

A/130/2016

UHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

HEMANT KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

N.K.BAJAJ

17 Nov 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  : 130 of 2016

Date of Institution: 10.02.2016

Date of Decision : 17.11.2016

 

 

1.      Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam through its M.D.-cum-Chairman, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Shakti Nagar, Hisar Vidhyut Nagar, Hisar, Distt. Hisar.

2.      Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam through G.M. (Executive Engineer) Sub Division, Narnaul, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Narnaul, Singhana Road, Narnaul, Tehsil Narnaul, Distt. Mahendergarh.

3.      Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam through A.G.M./SDO, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, City Sub Division, Narnaul, Mahendergarh Road, Narnaul, Distt. Mahendergarh.

                                     

                                                          Appellants –Opposite Parties

 Versus

 

Hemant Kumar son of Sh. Subhash Chand resident of New Mandi, Narnaul, Tehsil Narnaul, Distt. Mahendergarh (Haryana)

 

                                      Respondent –Complainant

 

 

CORAM:             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Argued by:          Sh. Vineet Sehgal, Advocate for the appellants

Sh.  Varun Gupta, Advocate for the respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and its functionaries-opposite parties have filed the present appeal against the order dated 01.05.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Narnaul (in short, ‘District Forum’) whereby complaint filed by Hemant Kumar-complainant was allowed.  The opposite parties were directed not to claim Rs.38,995/- or surcharge etcetera thereon from the complainant.

2.      Hemant Kumar-complainant filed complaint with allegations that he has electric connection No. MM-21-2399 on his shop for earning his livelihood. Complainant received bill dated 14.12.2012 by adding amount of Rs.39,835/- by levying sundry charges of Rs.38,995/-. Complainant challenged the bill to be illegal.   

3.      Notice being issued to opposite parties. Opposite parties filed written version stating that the complainant had another connection bearing No.MM-21-0656 which was permanently disconnected and an amount of Rs.38995/- was due against the said connection, which the opposite parties could recover from the present connection of the consumer.

4.      District Forum after hearing parties allowed the complaint and passed orders as detailed in paragraph No. 1 of this order.

5.      We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the file.

6.      Alongwith the appeal, the appellant has filed application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of 251 days’ delay in filing the appeal.  The ground for seeking condonation of delay mentioned is that delay occurred while seeking approval from higher authorities to file appeal.

7.      A 30 days period has been prescribed in Section 15 of the Act, for filing appeal against the order of the District Forum. However, the proviso contained therein permits the State Commission to entertain an appeal after the expiry of the period of 30 dyas if it is satisfied that there is ‘sufficient cause’ for not filing the appeal within the period prescribed. The expression ‘sufficient cause’ has not been defined in the Act, rightly so, because it would vary per facts and circumstances of each particular case.

8.      It is now well settled that expression “sufficient cause” must be substantially construed in order to advance cause of justice.  Span of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion.  Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be uncondonable due to a want of acceptable explanation whereas in deserving cases, delay of a very long range can be condoned where explanation thereof is satisfactory. It also must be remembered that after expiry of period of limitation, the respondent acquires a valuable right and such valuable right cannot be set at naught unless sufficient cause is shown.  It would be apt to refer to a few authorities on the point at issue.

9.      Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bikram  Dass Versus Financial Commissioner and others, AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1221 has held as under:-

“Section 5 of the Limitation Act is a hard task-master and judicial interpretation has encased it within a narrow compass. A large measure of case law has grown around S.5, its highlights being that one ought not easily to take away a right which has accrued to a party by lapse of time and that therefore a litigant who is not vigilant about his right must explain every day’s delay.”

10.    In State of Nagaland versus Lipokao and others 2005(2) RCR (Criminal 414 Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that to get any appeal admitted or to get the delay condoned, it is condition precedent to first prove the “sufficient cause” for exercise of discretion of the Court in condoning the delay.  Unless and until the sufficient cause is not proved, the delay cannot be condoned.

11.    In Revision Petition No.3198 of 2014, PSPCL and another versus Manoj Wadhwa, decided on August 25^th, 2014, Hon’ble National Commission observed as under:-

“The expression “sufficient cause” cannot be erased from Section 5 of the Limitation Act by adopting excessive liberal approach, which would defeat the very purpose of Section 5 of Limitation Act and Consumer Protection Act.  There must be some cause which can be termed as sufficient one for the purpose of delay of condonation.

4.      It must be borne in mind that the procedure under C.P. Act is summary procedure. The Act itself fixes time for disposal of a case.  The Apex Court in a case under the C.P. Act itself, in Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), held that “It 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”.

5.      The other authorities which go to support the case of the respondent are R.B. Ramlingam V. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC), Ram Lal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, & Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others, AIR, 1977 SC 1221.”

12.    In view of above, this Commission has to bear in mind that the object of expeditious disposal of consumer dispute would get defeated if such applications filed on frivolous grounds are allowed. No documents have been annexed as to on which date order was received and on which date, the sanction was sought and on which date, the sanction was granted. It shows the casual approach.  Therefore, the application for seeking the condonation of delay is dismissed.

13.    Even on merits, there is no force in the instant appeal. Neither before the District Forum nor alongwith appeal, opposite parties have filed any documents whatsoever in support of their contention that the complainant had another connection, and there was outstanding default of Rs.38,995/-.  Except oral submissions, no document whatsoever has been placed on the file.  Therefore, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the District Forum.  Thus the appeal is dismissed both on the grounds of limitation as well as on merits.  

 

Announced 17.11.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member