Date of Filing – 21.04.2017

Date of Hearing – 21.12.2017

           The instant appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) is at the behest of the Opposite Parties to impeach the Judgement/Final Order dated 22.03.2017 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Purba Medinipur at Tamluk (for short, Ld. District Forum) in Consumer Complaint No. 09/2017.  By the impugned order, the Ld. District Forum allowed the complaint lodged by the Respondent/Complainat Sri Ashok Kumar Kar under Section 12 of the Act with the direction upon the Appellants/Opposite Parties to pay Rs.4,20,342/- along with 9% interest from the date of filing of petition of complaint till the date of realisation of the same, to pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost within one month from the date of order, failing which the OPs will be liable to pay punitive charge of Rs.100/- per day which will be payable to the Consumer Welfare Fund.

          The Respondent herein being complainant lodged the complaint asserting that he is sole proprietor of M/s. Raja Ice and runs his business for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment.  He took service connection from the opposite parties being Consumer No.D22077, Service Connection No.197(1).  At the time of taking the said electric connection, he deposited an amount of Rs.2,09,100/- as security deposit on 18.06.2001 but the OPs negligently supplied rural phase instead of industrial phase for which production of the business was hampered due to power cut and low voltage etc.  Subsequently, complainant paid Rs.26,869/- for changing feeding charges and thereafter the opposite parties changed electric connection from rural phase to industrial phase.  Thereafter, the opposite parties demanded to increase the security deposit amount and on 26.07.2003 he was compelled to deposit an amount of Rs.4,20.342/- as security deposit.  The complainant has stated that he started business by obtaining loan from bank which was sanctioned on 31.03.1997 but the OPs gave electric connection on 25.05.1999.  However, the complainant was unable to start production of his business within two years and ultimately, on 19.11.2013 the bank concerned took over the property due to default in payment of instalments.  Ultimately, the opposite parties disconnected the service connection in the month of January, 2004.  The complainant alleged that time and again he has made requests to the opposite parties to refund the security deposit money but all his requests and persuasions including letter dated 21.10.2010 turned a deaf ear.  Hence, the respondent approached the Ld. District Forum with prayer for refund of security deposit amount of Rs.4,20.342/- with 18% interest, to pay Rs.7,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,00,000/- as litigation cost etc.

          The Appellants being Opposite Parties by filing a written version have stated that the instant complaint is barred by limitation and the cause of action as made out in Paragraph-22 of the complaint are false, imaginary and baseless and as such the complaint should be dismissed.

          After assessing the materials on record, the Ld. District Forum by the impugned Judgement/Final Order allowed the complaint with certain directions as indicated above.  Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said Judgement/Final Order, the opposite parties have come up in this Commission with the present appeal.

          Having heard the Ld. Advocates appearing for the parties and on having a look to the materials on record, it would reveal that the Respondent being the proprietor of M/s. Raja Ice had started one Ice factory at Village- Khadalgobra under P.S.- Digha, Dist- Purba Medinipur and applied to the appellants for electric connection and get connection from old Digha Feeder after depositing service connection charge of Rs.1,32,256/- and Bank Guarantee Bond of Rs.2,09,100/- in 1997.  Thereafter, for increase of production and for extra load, the distribution licensee provided industrial/commercial connection to the respondent and for change of connection into industrial phase, respondent had deposited Rs.26,869/- on 26.09.200 and Rs.2,09,100/- as security deposit on 18.06.2001. 

          In any case, from the petition of complaint itself, it would reveal that the respondent has deposited Rs.4,20,342/- as security deposit on 26.07.2003.  It also comes to surface that the respondent could not run his business for which the bank, from which the respondent obtained loan, took over the property due to default of instalments on 19.11.2013.  The contents of petition of complaint further goes to show that the appellants disconnected the service connection of the respondent in the month of January, 2004. 

In their written version, the appellants have categorically mentioned that the complaint is barred by limitation and the cause of action as spell out in Paragraph-22 of the petition of complaint is imaginary and baseless one.  It is surprising to note that the Ld. District Forum did not at all discuss whether the complaint is barred by limitation in accordance with the provisions of Section 24A of the Act.  It is quite apparent that the electric connection was disconnected by the appellants in the month of January, 2004 and the instant complaint was lodged in the year 2017 after a long delay of about 13 years and in doing so, the respondent/complainant did not take any pain to file any application for condonation of delay.  For appreciation of the matter, it would be worthwhile to reproduce the provisions of Section 24A of the Act which runs as follows –

“24A. 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 contend in sub-section(1) 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”.

          The above provisions is clearly peremptory and mandatory in nature requiring the Consumer Fora to see at the time of entertaining the complaint, whether it has been filed within the stipulated period of two years from the date of cause of action.  In a decision reported in 2009 (4) CPR 17 (Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co. – vs. – National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.) the Hon’ble Supreme Court after adopting the view of the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) CPR 107 (State Bank of India –Vs- B.S. Agricultural Industries) has observed – “As a matter of law, the Consumer Forum must deal with the complaint on merits only if the complaint has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action and if beyond the said period, the sufficient cause has been shown and delay condoned for the reasons recorded in writing.  In other words, it is the duty of the Consumer Forum to take notice of Section 24A and give effect to it.  If the complaint is barred by time and yet, the Consumer Forum decides the complaint on merits, the Forum would be committing an illegality and, therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside”.

          It is well settled that by making correspondences or by serving legal notice or by making representation, the period of limitation cannot be extended.  In such a situation keeping in view the legislative mandate and the decision of Hon’ble National Commission reported in 2014 (4) CPR 255 [The Assistant General Manager, Reserve Bank of India – Vs. – Karumu Subba Reddy], the Ld. District Forum had no authority to admit the complaint.

          In that perspective, the Ld. District Forum had no occasion to enter into merit of the case and to pass the impugned order in favour of the respondent by holding that the opposite parties/appellants were deficient in rendering services to the complainant/respondent.

          For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is dismissed on contest.  However, there will be no order as to costs.

          Consequently, the CC/09/2017 stands dismissed being time barred. 

The impugned judgement/final order is hereby set aside.

          The Registrar of the Commission is directed to send a copy of this order to the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Purba Medinipur at Tamluk for information.