RESERVED
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW
APPEAL NO. 2761 OF 2001
(Against the judgment/order dated 03-10-2001 in Complaint Case
No.286/2000 of the District Consumer Commission, Ballia)
- Executive Engineer
Electricity Distribution Division-II
U.P. Power Corporation Limited
Ballia, District Ballia.
- Sub Divisional Officer
Electricity Distribution Division
U. P. Power Corporation Limited
IInd Division, Ballia.
- Junior Engineer, Prabhari
Civil Line, Electricity Distribution Division
U. P. Power Corporation Limited
District Ballia
... Appellants
Vs.
Rakesh Kumar, Proprietor
M/s Rahul Bakery & Food Industries
Civil Line, Ballia
District Ballia
...Respondent
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. RAJENDRA SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER
HON’BLE MR. SUSHIL KUMAR, MEMBER
For the Appellant : Sri Deepak Mehrotra, Advocate.
For the Respondent : None appeared.
Dated : 25-08-2021
JUDGMENT
MR. RAJENDRA SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER
This appeal has been filed under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the judgement and order dated 03.10.2001 passed by the Learned District Consumer Commission, Ballia in complaint Case No. 286 of 2000, Rakesh Kumar V/s Executive Engineer, U. P. Power Corporation Limited and others.
The brief facts of the appeal are that the judgment and order dated 03-10-2001 is illegal, unjust, arbitrary, lacks application of mind, passed in ignorance of the conduct of the complainant and without considering the
:2:
facts and circumstances of the case.
According to the complainant, he had applied for 7.5 HP, 3 phase electric connection in September, 1997 which was given to him on 15-12-1997 but instead of three phase supply, only one phase supply was given to him and due to this he could not run his machines and factory and suffered a lot. As per complainant, because he could not use the one phase supply for his machinery, he did not make any payment and as a result of it his connection was disconnected in September, 1998. The complainant has prayed that he was liable to pay the bills for only one HP supply in place of 7.5 HP with effect from 15-07-1997 to September, 1998.
The learned District Consumer Commission failed to appreciate that the alleged cause of action accrued to the complainant on the date of release of connection i.e. 15-12-1997 but he did not make any representation for the three phase supply. It is quite surprising that the connection was disconnected on the ground of non payment of dues in September, 1997 even then the complainant did not make any representation before the opposite parties and did not make any effort for restoration of supply though according to him the bills which were issued to him was at the rate of 7.5 HP and for three phase supply is incorrect. The complainant did not explain as to why he has not made any representation for the full load supply of three phase. There is no evidence to show that the complainant has made any effort for release of three phase supply. The conduct of the complainant in not challenging the disconnection which was made on the ground of non payment of dues and which according to the complainant was incorrect. If the disconnection was illegal, the complainant should have challenged it before the appropriate Court or before the higher authorities of the opposite parties but he did not do so. The most surprising thing is that the allegation of the complainant is that the supply given to him was only one phase supply in place of three phase supply as demanded and required by him but he has made a prayer for preparation of the bills at the rate of 1 HP. It is not explained as to how he has related one phase supply with the amount of load used by him. The connection was given to the complainant without installing a meter and the only method for preparing the bills was the amount of
:3:
sanctioned load and by making the case for preparation of bill at 1 HP load the complainant has tried to mislead the learned District Consumer Commission.
The agreement entered into the complainant and the opposite party was an agreement for 7.5 HP. It is said that the certificate has been given by Sri R Y Yadav, Junior Engineer on 17-08-1998 was not filed by the complainant alongwith the memorandum of complaint and its copy was not at all supplied to the opposite party prior to arguments. This certificate was produced at the time of argument and hence the opposite party could not make any statement on this but subsequently the clarification was sought from Sri R Y Yadav, Junior Engineer on this point and Sri Yadav informed that no such certificate was ever issued by him. The connection was released in 1997 by the Junior Engineer Sri Arun Kumar Singh and not by the Junior Engineer Sri R Y Yadav and Sri Arun Kumar Singh has confirmed that he has given three phase supply to the complainant on 15-12-1997. The complainant never brought before us the so called letter of Sri R Y Yadav after disconnection. The complaint has been filed after a long period and was delayed. It is therefore prayed that the impugned judgment and order dated 03-10-2001 passed by the learned District Consumer Commission, Ballia in Complaint Case No. 286/2000, Rakesh Kumar V/s Executive Engineer, U P Power Corporation Limited and others be set aside and appeal be allowed.
We have heard Sri Deepak Mehrotra, learned Counsel for the appellants.
Service on respondent was held sufficient on 10-04-2018 but nobody appeared from the respondent’s side.
We have perused the impugned judgment and order, pleadings and documents on record.
First we have seen the impugned judgment passed by the District Consumer Commission on 03-10-2001. The learned District Consumer Commission has held that the connection which was given to the complainant was capable of running his machines but the complainant did not run his machines. The learned District Consumer Commission has held that there is deficiency of service by the opposite parties and the electricity was not being used for commercial purpose and the learned District
:4:
Consumer Commission has directed the opposite parties to prepare the bill on 1 KV load from 15-12-1997 to 30-09-1998 and the amount of security deposited with the U P Power Corporation Limited be adjusted to this bill and also directed to pay Rs.500/- as cost of the complaint alongwith Rs.10,000/- as compensation for physical and mental agony with 12 % interest per annum.
The main contention of the appellants before this Commission is that the complaint has been filed after a long period so as per provisions of the Consumer Protection Act it could not be entertained.
We have seen the complaint filed by the complainant before the learned District Consumer Commission. The connection was given to the complainant on 15-12-1997 and thereafter it has been disconnected in September, 1998. The complaint has been filed on 08-12-2000 meaning thereby that it has been filed after a period of more than two years. No plausible explanation has been given in the complaint. It is also clear that no application for condonation of delay has been given. After perusal of the documents it is also clear that the complainant wanted the bill at the rate of 1 KV electricity supply but he did not take any steps to increase the load from 1 HP to 7.5 HP three phase.
The Consumer Protection Act seeks to provide for better protection of the interests of the consumers. The main object of this Act is to provide speedy and simple redressal to consumer disputes.
It is clear that the complaint has been filed after a period of about two years and no explanation has been given by the complainant. So on this very basis the complaint was time barred and the learned District Consumer Commission should have enforced the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and without condoning the delay it could not be entertained. Hence, we are of the opinion that the complaint was time barred, hence without condoning delay the learned District Consumer Commission had moved beyond jurisdiction to try the complaint. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.
ORDER
The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order is set aside
:5:
and the complaint is dismissed.
Let copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules.
The Stenographer is requested to upload this order on the website of this Commission today itself.
( RAJENDRA SINGH ) ( SUSHIL KUMAR )
PRESIDING MEMBER MEMBER
Judgment dated/typed/signed and pronounced in the open court today by us.
( RAJENDRA SINGH ) ( SUSHIL KUMAR )
PRESIDING MEMBER MEMBER
Pnt.
