Punjab

Nawanshahr

CC/20/2016

Chaman Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

10 Mar 2016

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SHAHEED BHAGAT SINGH NAGAR. 

 

Consumer Complaint No    :   20 of 08.03.2016 

Date of Decision              :   10.03.2016      

Chaman Lal S/o Sh.Nisha Ram, Village Chankoia, Tehsil Balachaur, District Nawanshahr

                                                          ….Complainant

Versus

1. PSPCL, The Mall Patiala, through its MD/Chairman.
2. Sub Divisional Officer, PSPCL, Sub Division No.-1, Balachaur District Nawanshahr.
3. Assistant Executive Engineer, PSPCL, Sub Division-1, Balachaur.

Opposite parties

Complaint under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM:         

SH.G.K. DHIR, PRESIDENT

MS.SUSHMA HANDOO, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

For Complainant           :         In person.

 

ORDER 

PER SH.G.K. DHIR, PRESIDENT

1.       Office report seen.  Heard for preliminary hearing.  Complaint filed by claiming that complainant is consumer of OPs with account No.N21HC480178K.  As per complaint, Rs.3046/- were illegally sought to be charged through  bills dated 21.07.2009 and 22.09.2009, despite the fact that meter was in OK position.  These charges of Rs.3046/- shown as balance/Misc. expenses in the above referred two bills. It is further claimed that by showing the meter of complainant lying dead/stopped, the same was changed on 25.01.2009.  It is also claimed that OP-3 at his own by forging the signatures of complainant changed the meter.  The new meter is showing same consumption of units, as was being shown by old one.  OP No.2&3 were approached many times, but the complaint kept pending for five years.  During this period the domestic meter of complainant remained on, but due to pendency of complaint, the bill amounts were not paid by complainant.  Despite that the electric meter in question was not removed, but the same was removed illegally on 07.03.2014 due to which complainant served legal notice dated 29.07.2015.  Complainant claims that he has to remain without electricity for the last two years.

2.       From the perusal of the above referred contents of complaint, it is made out that grievance of the complainant virtually is for correction of the bills issued on 21.07.2009 and 22.09.2009. That grievance cannot be redressed at this stage, particularly when the complaint has been filed after more than six years and five months of issue of bill dated 22.09.2009. 

3.       Another grievance of complainant is that his complaint was kept pending for five years and meter removed on 07.03.2014 illegally.  If earlier complaints filed in 2009 kept pending for five years, then virtually complainant got knowledge of rejection of his complaints on 07.03.2014, when the electricity meter in question was removed.  The electric meter is never removed at once and as such virtually the same was removed due to non-paying of the electricity consumption charges by complainant.  Complainant in Para No.8 of the complaint himself has admitted having not paid the electricity consumption charges for five years due to pendency of the complaints. So virtually removal of the electricity meter in question took place on 07.03.2014 due to non-payment of the electricity consumption charges by complainant.  Even the copies of bills of the electricity consumption charges for period from 22.09.2009 to filing of complaint or till removal of the electricity meter on 07.03.2014 has not been produced and as such there is suppression of material facts in this respect.   A consumer suppressing such like material facts not entitled to any relief at all, particularly when complainant has not disclosed as to where those issued bills for period from 22.09.2009 onwards are. Admission of complainant qua not paying the electricity bills for the last five years prior to removal of the electricity meter in question on 07.03.2014 itself establishes that complainant wants to enjoy the electricity through meter in question without discharging his obligation of paying the bills.  That is not legally permissible.  Non payment of the electricity bills by complainant for five years is an act of high handedness on part of complainant, due to which also the prayed relief of restoring the electricity or of not recovering Rs.3046/- cannot be granted. 

4.       Cause of action accrued to complainant w.e.f 07.03.2014, due to which the complaint must have been filed by 06.03.2016 in view of section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Even as per law laid in case R.Jaywal Vs State of Tamilnadu AIR 2006 Madras 215, application under section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act must be filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action.  However, in case there is acknowledgment of liability by OPs, then complaint can be filed within two years from the date of acknowledgment, which in the reported case was of 09.12.1996.  It has been specifically held in this reported case that if cause of action accrued on 30.11.1996, then the complaint must have been filed on or before 30.11.1998.  Complainant has not claimed about the acknowledgment of liability by OPs in this case and as such virtually the cause of action accrued to complainant on 07.03.2014 only, when the electric meter in question was removed.  So complaint could have been filed by 06.03.2016.  However, this complaint filed on 08.03.2016 without filling any application for condonation of delay and as such certainly the complaint being not filed with two years from the accrual of cause of action is barred by limitation and same is not liable to be entertained as per Section 24-A of The Consumer Protection Act.  No sufficiency of the cause shown for not filing the complaint within prescribed period of limitation of two years.  Service of legal notice dated 29.03.2015 alone will not extend the limitation period of two years.  It is well settled that as and when period of limitation for filling complaint starts running, the same will not stop running by service of legal notice through counsel alone.  Complainant himself claims to have remained without electricity facility for the last two years, which specifically pleaded w.e.f. 07.03.2014, when the electricity meter in question was removed and as such complainant should have approached this Forum within two years from accrual of cause of action.  If complainant has filed application through local MLA with XEN, then same will not extend the period of limitation, particularly when the period of limitation can be condoned as and when remedy availed before appropriate authority.  MLA is not competent  authority in this case. Even dates of visit by complainant to OPs not mentioned in the complaint and as such allegations in that respect remains vague. As and when the allegations are vague, then the plea in that respect cannot be accepted prima facie even.

5.       As a sequel of above discussion, this complaint is not entertained, being barred by limitation.  Complaint accordingly is dismissed, at the stage of admission itself.

6.       Let copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules.

7.       File be indexed and consigned to record. 

Dated 10.03.2016                                                         

 

 

(Sushma Handoo)                                                        (G. K. Dhir)

Member                                                               President