Heard learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondent.
2. This appeal is filed U/S-15 of erstwhile Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.
3. The case of the complainant, in nutshell is that the complainant was a consumer under the OP by taking power supply to her Fabrication unit on 10.10.2000. Thereafter the complainant paid first bill on 01.03.2001 but thereafter the complainant did not receive any bill. It is alleged inter-alia that on 29.06.2001 the Op-team came to the said unit alongwith other member of Ops demanded Rs.6,000/- as illegal payment. So, the complaint case was filed.
4. The OPs filed written version stating that on 6.7.2001 OP No.4 visited to the workshop of the complainant and broke the seal of the meter and further averred that necessary electric bill was not paid by the complainant and for that reason they disconnected the power supply. As such they have no any fault. Therefore, they have no deficiency in service on their part.
5. After hearing both the parties, learned District Forum passed the following order:-
Xxxx xxxx xxxx
“ We direct the Ops are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.6,46,735/- as pecuniary loss caused to the complainant, Rs.70,000/- towards compensation for harassment, mental agony and torture, Rs.11,808/- towards refund of security amount alongwith litigation case of Rs.1,000/-. They are directed to pay the entire amount of Rs.7,17,785/- within two months from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the amount shall carry interest @ 12 % P.A. till payment.”
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum passed the impugned order contrary to law because the learned District Forum has no jurisdiction to dispose of the case and moreover the case is barred by limitation because it arose in 29.06.2001 but case was filed in 07.07.2004. So, he submitted to set-aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.
7. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant, perused the DFR and impugned order.
8. It is admitted fact that the complainant is a regular consumer under the OP and taken the power supply to her fabrication unit. It is also admitted fact that the complainant has deposited the security amount with the OP and he has received the bill on 29.06.2001 for payment of Rs.7590/-. Thereafter on 02.07.2001 again bill was issued for an amount of Rs. 17,664/-. It is alleged that OP no.4 on 06.07.2001 broke the seal but charged the complainant to have broken the seal. It is also admitted fact that although he has got the bill but final bill was served on the complainant amounting to Rs.88,879/- He has challenged the said bill of 2001 but the complaint case seems to have been filed on 07.07.2004. Section-24 A of the Act states that the complaint case can not be filed beyond two years from the date of cause of action arose. Now since three years have already passed and there is no any order of the learned District Forum regarding condonation of delay, we must come to a conclusion that the complaint case is barred by limitation U/S-24 A of the Act.
9. So far merit is concerned, it appears that the Ops have issued the bill time to time. But the complainant failed to deposit the money stating that the bill has been claimed illegally. But no such probe is there to substantiate her case. Therefore, the complainant failed to prove the case and deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
In the result, the impugned order is liable to set-aside and it is set-aside. Appeal stands allowed. No cost.
Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet or webtsite of this Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission.
DFR be sent back forthwith.
Statutory amount be refunded.
