DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.245 of 02-06-2011 Decided on 23-06-2011
Jaswinder Singh, aged 58 years, son of Kartar Singh son of Jhanda Singh, R/o Bhunder Road, Mandi Kalan, District Bathinda. .......Complainant Versus
Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., The Mall, Patiala, through its Chairman/M.D. Assistant Executive Engineer, Sub Urban, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Rampura Phul.
......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President. Sh.Amarjeet Paul, Member. Present:- For the Complainant: Sh.Amandeep Singh, counsel for the complainant.
ORDER
Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President:-
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended up-to-date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is holding domestic electric connection. He got a memo No.1124 dated 24.03.2009 in which the opposite parties demanded a sum of Rs.79,537/- on the basis of theft of electricity by putting wire from LT wire directly for installing the meter lying the court yard of the complainant and illegally consuming the electricity by taking direct wire from the main supply. He has challenged the said memo on various grounds that he never involved in alleged theft of electricity as the meter of the complainant being checked time to time by the officials of the opposite parties; no system of theft was detected at the spot; no checking on 18.03.2009 was made in the presence of the complainant and the officials of the opposite parties never obtained the signatures of the complainant on any paper at the time of alleged checking; the connection of the complainant was not disconnected till 27.01.2011 being the correct one and on various other grounds. He further alleged that the alleged motor shown by the opposite parties in the memo dated 18.03.2009 lying in the court yard of the complainant was purchased by him only on 03.03.2009 and as per memo dated 24.03.2009, the alleged checking was made on 18.03.2009 and in that situation, the complainant is liable only to pay the amount for 15 days. The complainant subsequently alleged that the cause of action arose in favour of the complainant on 18.03.2009 when the alleged checking was conducted and on 24.03.2009 when the opposite parties raised alleged memo No.1124 for raising a demand of Rs.79,156/- as theft of energy for using the electricity and disconnected the connection of the complainant on 27.01.2011. 2. Preliminary hearing has been given to the complainant. Record placed on file by the complainant perused. It has been argued by the complainant repeatedly that the cause of action arise on 18.03.2009. The checking was conducted and thereafter, a memo No.1124 was received by him on 24.03.2009. According to his own pleadings, he has duly received this memo on 24.03.2009 and had not paid the amount raised through this memo. He has filed the present complaint on 02.06.2011 which is after a lapse of 2 years whereas the permissible period under the 'Act' to file a complaint within 2 years from the arise of cause of action. Hence, the present complaint is time barred. As per Section 24A of the 'Act' which is read as under:- “Limitation Period:- (1) 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. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (10, 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.” 3. In the case in hand, the complainant has not furnished the proper reasons that why he has filed the complaint after much delay. He has mentioned in his complaint and argued that his electricity connection was disconnected on 27.01.2011 and cause of action arise from the disconnection of the connection but the complainant was already aware of the demand raised through memo No.1124 dated 24.03.2009 on the basis of checking dated 18.03.2009. The support can be sought by the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled State Bank of India Vs. B.S. Agriculural Industries, 2009 (2) CLT 541, wherein it has been held that:- “(i) Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 24A – Limitation – Held that provisions of Section 24A is pre-emptory in nature and requires Consumer Forum to see before it admits the complaint that it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action – As a matter of law, the Consumer Forum must deal with the complaint on merits only if the complaint has filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause and if beyond the said period, the sufficient cause has been shown and delay condoned for the reasons recorded in writing – If the complaint is barred by time and yet, the Consumer Forum decides the complaint on merits, the Forum would be committing an illegality – The aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside. (ii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 24A – Limitation – Cause of action to the complainant accrued on June 7, 1994 and complaint filed on 05.05.1997 – Neither application for condonation of delay nor any sufficient cause shown – The question of condonation of delay in filing the complaint does not arise – Complaint barred by time and ought to have been dismissed as such – The appeal allowed – The orders of Foras below liable to be set aside and complaint dismissed as time barred.” 4. Therefore, in view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is beyond the limitation. Hence, this complaint is dismissed in limini without any order as to cost. 5. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. '
Pronounced 23.06.2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President
(Amarjeet Paul) Member
| 
