PER JUSTICE R.C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) Challenge in these proceedings is to the order dated 01.11.2006 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh in appeal No. 466 of 2006. The appeal before the State Commission was filed by the petitioner herein against the order dated 17.4.2006 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT Chandigarh in complaint case No. 713 of 2005. After trial, the District Forum had partly allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party/petitioner herein to charge for the energy consumed by the complainant only for six months and to refund the excess amount, if any, paid by the complainant and with a further direction that the period during which the meter remained incorrect/dead stop, as alleged by the opposite party, meter rent and surcharge would not be charged from the complainant. The State Commission dismissed the appeal after taking note of the notification of Chandigarh Administration dated 16.2.2000, by which the said Administration had adopted the amended Sales Manual of the Punjab State Electricity Board, in particular instruction No. 115 thereof, which inter-alia provided that so far as the charging the consumer for the period the meter remained inoperative is concerned, the average consumption of the last four or six months or the average of the same months in the previous year or the factual recorded consumption, if any, whichever is higher shall be compared with the consumption and higher of the two figures shall be charged on the provisional basis. 2. The present petition purportedly under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed after undue delay of 2003 days and an application seeking condonation of delay has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. The sole ground put up in the said application is set up in para 3 of the said application, which we would like to reproduce herein below for the facility of reference: “3. That there occurred delay in filing of the present Revision Petition. It is submitted that the impugned order was passed by the State Commission, Chandigarh on 01.11.2006. Since, the department decided to challenge the said order by filing appropriate Revision Petition in the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi and in pursuance of which instruction for filing Revision Petition was issued by the Department on 23.3.2007. The Revision Petition accordingly was prepared and affidavit and Vakalatnama were sent to the department for signature and attestation at Chandigarh, but the same were not received back from the office of petitioner department. In the meantime office/files of counsel was also shifted from 242, Kailash Hills, New Delhi to present address at B-10, Dhawandeep Apartments, 6, Jantar Mantar Road, New Delhi – 110 001 and the file of present case by mistake was tagged in the bunch of other cases and could not be traced. The said petition as found tagged in between bundle of disposed of cases. Immediately thereafter again fresh vakalatnama and affidavits were again sent to department for signature and attestation, which were received from the department only on 28.7.2012.” 3. Counsel for the petitioner also submits that the delay was occasioned due to the above reasons that the file in question was mixed up with the other files of the counsel and office of the counsel was shifted from Kailash Hills to Jantar Mantar, New Delhi. No supporting affidavit of either the counsel or any other person has been filed who had the knowledge of all those facts. It is almost impossible to believe that such a situation had actually happened. We say so because even if the file or the brief of the counsel was mixed up in some other files, the petitioner who is the Government functionary could not be unmindful and sleeping for more than six years and not cared to contact with the counsel as to whether the revision petition has been filed or not and if filed what was the fate of the said revision petition. 4. We are therefore of the view that the reason put forth in the application for condonation of delay does not afford sufficient cause within the meaning of the term, so as to entitle the petitioner to seek the exercise of judicial discretion in their favor for condoning such a huge delay of more than six years in filing the revision petition. The application is declined. 5. Even then, we have examined the legality and correctness of the orders passed by the fora below and, in our view, the same are correctly based on the material instructions in vogue at the relevant time and suffer from no illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error, which warrants interference by this Commission. 4. Dismissed on both counts of delay and on merits. |
