Haryana

StateCommission

A/1128/2015

UHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

RANBIR SINGH RATHAUR - Opp.Party(s)

SUSHIL KUMAR SHRMA

06 Jun 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                First appeal No.1128 of 2015

Date of the Institution: 30.12.2015

Date of Decision: 06.06.2016

 

1. J.E.Uttri Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Sub-Division, Beri.
2. SDO, UHBVNL,Division Beri, District Jhajjar.

                                                                   .….Appellants

 

Versus

 

1. Ranbir Singh Rathaur S/o Shrichand Rathaur r/o Mohammad pur Majra,Tehsil Beri,District Jhajjar.

…..Respondent

2. Ravinder S/o Om Parkash S/oSh.Dhanna ram, r/o Mohammadpur Majra, Tehsil Beri, District Jhajjar.

                                                                   .….Proforma  Respondent

 

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Sushil Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the appellants.

                    Mr.Ranbir Singh Rathaur respondent No.1 in person.

O R D E R

R.K.Bishnoi, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

          It was alleged by the complainant that he obtained domestic electric connection No.B-051/0480 from electricity department and deposited all the bills till 14.03.1997.  On that day he sold his house to One Kamla Devi and she promised to get the electricity connection transferred in her name.  Sale deed was executed to this effect on 07.10.1986, but, could not be got registered because thereafter he started resided at Nazafgarh.  He was not aware that an application was to be moved for disconnection of supply.  On 12.12.2005 he received bill for the amount of Rs.9273/-.  He moved an application on 18.06.2006 and 13.10.2006 before Junior Engineer (J.E.) wherein surcharge was exempted and he was directed to deposit remaining amount.  Thereafter he received bill dated 22.10.2006 to deposit Rs.2,38,358/-.  He moved an application before concerned authorities to cancel those bills or the amount be recovered from the connection of O.P.No.3 bearing No.B-051/779, but, to no use.  On 27.05.2013 he sent notice through is counsel, but, even then no relief was granted.  Bills dated 12.12.2005 and 12.12.2006 be cancelled.

2.      O.P.Nos.1 and 2 filed joint reply controverting his averments and alleged that he did not deposit any amount after 14.03.1997, so the bill was rightly  sent  to him.  The amount is to be recovered from the person in whose name the connection is existing.  Before 26.11.2003 the premises was having meter bearing No.B-051/0480 and same was properly used.

3.      O.P.No.3 filed reply controverting his averments and alleged that there was no electricity meter when he took possession of the house in question.  It was in dilapidated condition.  He is consuming electricity through connection No.051/0779.  Other averments were also denied and alleged that complaint be dismissed.

3.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhajjar (In short “District Forum”)  disposed of the complaint vide impugned order dated 15.09.2015 and directed as under:-

“Therefore, we direct the respondent No.1 and 2 to intimate the uptodate outstanding dues of connection No.B051/0480 to the complainant as well as to the respondent No.3 (Under writing) within a period of one month. Thereafter, it is directed that further within one month the complainant, the respondent nos.1 and 2 and also the respondent no.3 shall bear the outstanding dues proportionately i.e. 1/3^rd amount shall be borne by complainant, 1/3^rd amount by respondent Nos.1 and 2 and 1/3^rd amount of outstanding dues shall be borne by respondent No.3 equally. The complaint is disposed of accordingly.”

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom appellants-O.P. Nos.1 and 2 have preferred this appeal.

5.       Arguments heard.  File perused.

6.       Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that   notices dated  12.12.2005 and 22.10.2006 were altogether illegal, null and void because he was not consuming electricity after 14.03.1997. when the house was sold to Kamla Devi that amount should be recovered from O.P.No.3/respondent No.2.  The complaint is not time barred because notice was sent to O.P.Nos.1 and 2 on 27.05.2013 and complaint was filed on  22.08.2013. 

7.                This argument is devoid of any force.  It is well settled proposition of law that notice does not cover period of limitation.  If he issued notice to O.Ps. in the year 2013, it does not mean that period of limitation has extended as opined by Hon’ble National Commission expressed in Jansatta Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd. Vs. Kone Elevators India Pvt. Ltd. 1 (2016) CPJ 190.  It is opined therein that merely sending a notice does not constitute a cause of action nor does it extend period of limitation. 

8.                Complaint was filed on 22.08.2013, vide which complainant requested to set aside bills dated 12.12.2005 and 22.10.2006. i.e. after six to seven years. It is alleged by complainant himself that he filed complaint in the year 2013.   In this way this complaint is barred by time.  As per section, 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (In short “Act”) complaint can be filed within two years from the date of accruing of cause of action.

          In V.N.Shrikhande (Dr.) Versus Anita Sena Fernandes 2011 CTJ 1 (supreme court) CP) Hon’ble Supreme Court has opined as under:-

“Section 24A (1) contains a negative legislative mandate against admission of a complaint which has been filed after 2 years from the date of accrual of cause of action.  In other words, the consumer forums to not have the jurisdiction to entertain a complaint if the same is not filed within 2 years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.    This power is required to be exercised after giving opportunity of hearing to the complainant, who can seek condonation of delay under section 24A (2) by showing that there was sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the period prescribed under section 24 a (1).  If the complaint is per se barred by time and the complainant does not seek condonation of delay under Section 24a(2), the consumer Forums will have no option but to dismiss the same.”

     The present case is fully covered by this view and complaint deserves dismissal.

9.      Learned District Forum failed to take into consideration all these aspect, so impugned order dated 15.09.2015 is hereby set aside. Appeal is allowed and complaint is dismissed.

10.    The statutory amount of Rs.25000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and verification.

 

June 06th, 2016

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.