DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
CC No: 1187/2014
No. __________________ Dated : ____________________
IN THE MATTER OF:
Dr. J.P. SHARMA S/o SH. KAMAL SINGH,
R/o 4621-B/14, JAI MATA MARKET,
TRI NAGAR, DELHI-110035. …COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
TATA POWER DDL/DESU,
ROHINI, DELHI. …OPPOSITE PARTY
CORAM: SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SH. BARIQ AHMAD, MEMBER
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
Date of Decision: 22.09.2018
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
ORDER
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP underthe Consumer Protection Act, 1986 therebyalleging that the complainant deposited security amount of Rs.2,850/- on 08.01.1996 for installation of an electric meter at H. No. I-27, consisting of one room measuring 200 Sq. Yd. out of Khasra No. 7315 situated at Village-Rithala and abadi known as BudhVihar, Ph-II, Delhi-110041 and applied for a new electric meter connection
CC No. 1187/2014 Page 1 of 4
alongwith full documents at the office of DESU, MangolPuri village. The complainant further alleged that he visited a number of times at the office of OP and also gave reminders but the officers of OP replied that the file of the complainant is not traceable and no help can be done to the complainant. The complainant further alleged that he filed a claim before Permanent Lok Adalat-I vide claim no. PLA No.1/1218/2014 which was decided by Justice Satpal (Retd.) vide order dated 15.09.2014 thereby holding that no amicable settlement is possible as the respondent has submitted that the records pertaining to the year-1996 are not traceable.
2. The complainant further alleged that he being a Sr. Citizen of the age about 68 years is suffering from heart disease, indigestion problem and cannot walk frequently.
3. On these allegations, the complainant has filed the complaint praying for refund of security amount of Rs.2,850/- alongwith interest @ 18% and has also sought compensation.
4. OP has been contesting the case and filed the written statement wherein OP submitted that the complaint is not maintainable as no cause of action ever arose in favour of the complainant and against the OP and the complaint is sheer misuse of law and liable to be dismissed and the complaint is barred by limitation as the complainant is praying refund of security of Rs.2,850/- which was
CC No. 1187/2014 Page 2 of 4
deposited on 08.01.1996 i.e. after a span of about of 18 years and the complaint is barred u/s 24 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
5. The complainant filed rejoinder and denied the submissions of OP.
6. In order to prove his case, the complainant has filed his affidavit in evidence in which the complainant has repeated the allegations against the OP which has been leveled in the complaint and also filed copy of receipt no. 198613 dated 08.01.1996 regarding deposit of Rs.2,850/- issued by DESU and also filed copy of order dated 15.09.2014 of PLA-I. The complainant also filed written arguments.
7. On the other hand, on behalf of OP Sh. Santosh Choubey S/o Sh. S.K. Choubey, CSM (D), Rohini, E Code 91716 filed his affidavit in evidence which is as per line of defence taken by OP in the written statement. OP also filed written arguments.
8. We have heard both the parties and gone through the record. It is the admitted case of the complainant that he is seeking refund of security amount of Rs.2,850/- which was deposited on 08.01.1996. The first claim petition was filed before PLA-I in year-2014 and the present complaint has also been filed in the year-2014. It is no where explained by the complainant as to why he remained silent for a period of about 18 years. As per provisions of Sec.24 A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, a complaint should be filed within
CC No. 1187/2014 Page 3 of 4
a period of 2 years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.
9. Referring to the facts of the present case, as per the case of the complainant security amount of Rs.2,850/- was deposited on 08.01.1996 for installation new electric connection. It is no where explained by the complainant as to what action was taken by him during intervening period. Thus, this Forum is of opinion that the complaint is barred by period of limitation. The complaint is accordingly dismissed.
10. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of The Consumer Protection Regulations-2005. Therefore, file be consigned to record room.
Announced on this 22ndday of September,2018.
BARIQ AHMAD USHA KHANNA M.K.GUPTA
(MEMBER) (MENBER) (PRESIDENT)
CC No. 1187/2014 Page 4 of 4
