Date  :08.01.2013.

Per Mr.B.A.Shaikh, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.

1.       This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order passed by District Forum Beed in C.C.No.80/2005 on 19.12.2006, whereby the said complaint has been allowed.

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is as under.

          Complainant runs a shop at Majalgaon.  Electric connection was provided to that shop in the name of Vaijinath Rangnath Shinde, who is owner of that shop and complainant is his tenant. Opposite party has given that electric connection to that shop. Opposite party issued bills to the complainant from time to time in respect of electric consumption. All those bills were issued on the basis of average consumption showing meter as faulty though meters were changed from time to time by opposite party. Complainant paid total Rs.19,871/- from 22.2.1999 to 26.03.2004 to the opposite party as described in detail in the complaint. Opposite party had also inspected the meters of the complainant and it`s Junior Engineer had given report to charge the bill on average consumption of 50 units per month. However, it was not considered by the opposite party though request was made by the complainant to it to issue bills showing 50% average consumption. Disputed bills are for the period from 11.2.1999 to 22.8.2002.  Complainant therefore filed the complaint on 16.8.2005 before District Forum below praying that opposite party may be directed to reissue bills to him for the period from 11.2.1999 to 22.8.2002 showing 50 units average consumption per month as per report of the Junior Engineer and Rs.19,871/- deposited by him may be adjusted in those bills and opposite party may be also directed to pay Rs.5000/- towards mental harassment and Rs.2500/- towards cost of the complaint.

3.       Opposite party filed it`s written version and denied the claim. It is submitted that complaint in the  present form is not tenable and that complainant is not a consumer as electric connection is given in the name of Vaijinath Rangnath Shinde. It also submitted that it has issued corrected bill to Vaijinath Rangnath Shinde and hence complaint may be dismissed.

4.       District Forum below after having considered the evidence brought on record and having heard advocate of both the parties, came to the conclusion that complainant is the consumer of the opposite party and opposite party issued bills to the complainant more than average consumption.  Therefore there is deficiency in service provided by opposite party to the complainant. Learned District Forum therefore cancelled the bills issued for the period from 11.2.1999 to 22.8.2002 by the opposite party and directed opposite party to issue bills by charging over 50 units average consumption per month and deduct Rs.19871/- paid by the complainant to it and issue corrected bills accordingly. Complainant had also directed opposite party to pay to the complainant Rs.5000/- towards mental harassment and cost of the complaint or to adjust the said amount in bills issued to the complainant.

5.       Original opposite party feeling dissatisfied by the said order preferred this appeal.

          Adv.Shri.S.N.Tandale appearing for the appellant submitted that complaint is barred by limitation as it is not filed within two years from the  date of last disputed bills i.e. 22.8.2002.  He further submitted that complainant is not consumer as he is a simply tenant of shop to which electric connection has been given. He also submitted that appellant has already issued corrected bills to the owner of that shop in which meter has been installed. He has drawn our attention to the copy of Consumer Personal Ledger (C.P.L.) in support of his submission that Rs.63,802.82 has been deducted from the amount of bill of the month of October 2005 by the appellant.  He thus submitted that District Forum has not considered vital aspects of present case and erroneously granted relief as sought for by the complainant.  Hence appeal may be allowed and complaint may be dismissed. He relied upon the observations made in following cases.

i)        Krishan Kumar –Vs- Sub-Divisional Officer(OP) Sub-Division Cheeka, Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., 2012(4) CPR 409(NC)/.  It is observed by Hon`ble National Commission that no complaint can be entertained after expiry of period of limitation of two years.

ii)       Mahinder Bansal –Vs- SDO, City Sub Division, UHBVNL, 2012(4) CPR 219(NC). It is observed by Hon`ble National Commission that “Connection does not stand transferred in name of complainant by payment of bill.”

iii)      Raj Kumar –Vs- M/s M.G.Motors, Through its Manager/Authorised Representative and Anr., 2012(3) CPR 352(NC). It is observed that question of jurisdiction can be decided and can be raised at any stage even at execution stage.

6.       Adv.Shri.V.V.Bhavthankar appearing for the respondent submitted that complainant raised no plea of limitation before District Forum and complainant is beneficiary of the electric connection being tenant of shop to which electric connection was given and hence  complaint is maintainable. He also submitted that order of District Forum is based on the report of Junior Engineer of the appellant that bill be issued as per monthly average consumption of 50 units.  He also submitted that it is not shown on what basis interest is charged and hence he supported the impugned judgment and order and submitted that appeal may be dismissed.

7.       Complaint itself shows that the disputed bills were issued for the period from 11.2.1999 to 22.8.2002 only and complaint is filed in respect of amount of said disputed bills on 16.8.2005. District Forum has not considered the point of limitation while allowing the complaint.  The opposite party raised no plea in written version before District Forum about point of limitation. However we find that since the Section 24A of Consumer Protection Act provides that “Complaint shall not be admitted unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen”. It is thus obligatory on the part of complainant to file complaint within a period of two years from the date of cause of action. In the instant case last cause of action arose on the date of last disputed bill i.e. on 22.8.2002.  Complaint ought to have been filed on or before 21.8.2004.  However the complaint as noted above is filed on 16.8.2005.  Therefore we hold that complaint is barred by limitation.

8.       It is not disputed that complainant is running shop as a tenant of Vaijinath Rangnath Shinde in whose name electric connection is given by opposite party to the said shop.  Therefore complainant is a beneficiary. Therefore complainant falls within definition of “consumer” given U/s 2(1)(d)(ii) of Consumer Protection Act.

9.       Perusal of extract of Consumer Personal Ledger (C.P.L.) produced by appellant shows that it adjusted amount of Rs.63,802.84 in the bill of August 2005 issued to complainant.  Complaint was filed before making said correction i.e. it is filed in the month of October 2005.  Thus we find substance in the submission of appellant`s advocate that the appellant has corrected the previous bills of the complainant and therefore no question arise for giving any further direction to the opposite party/appellant herein.

10.     We thus find no deficiency to prove on the part of opposite party and it has already corrected the previous bills. In the result, we hold impugned judgment and order needs to be set aside. Complaint deserves to be dismissed.

                                                O   R    D    E    R

1.     Appeal is allowed.

2.     The impugned judgment and order dated 19.12.2006 passed in C.C.No.80/05 by Dist.Forum is hereby quashed and set aside. 

3.     Consequently, complaint stands dismissed.

4.     No order as to cost.

5.     Copies of the judgment and order be issued to both the parties.

Pronounced on 08.01.2013.