Haryana

StateCommission

A/1237/2014

Samsher Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

U.H.B.V.N.L - Opp.Party(s)

16 Feb 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                             

                                                         First Appeal No.1237 of 2014

Date of Institution: 17.12.2014

& 24.12.2014

                                                           Date of Decision: 16.02.2016

 

Samsher Singh S/o Raghuvir Singh R/o Blue-Jay Filling Station, G.T. Road, Samalkha, District Panipat.

…..Appellant

Versus

 

1.         U.H.B.V.N.L. through its Managing director, Shakti Bhawan, Sector 6,  Panchkula.

2.         XEN, U.H.B.V.N.L., Sub-Urban-Division, Panipat.

3.         SDO, U.H.B.V.N.L., Sub-Division, Samalkha, District Panipat.

                                                …..Respondents

 

CORAM:                    Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                                                                              

Present:                       Shri  Sudhir Rana, Advocate counsel for appellant.

                                    Shri B.D.Bhatia, Advocate counsel for the respondents.

 

                                                               O R D E R

URVASHI AGNIHOTRI, MEMBER:

  Alongwith the appeal, appellant has filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act (in short “Act”) for condonation of delay of  210 days (238 days calculated by the office) because appellant handed over the documents to Advocate but due to shifting of office the documents were misplaced by the advocate. Thus, delay of 238 days in filing of the present appeal  be condoned.

2.         Arguments Heard. File perused.

3.         Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that as per facts mentioned above, it is clear that delay in filing appeal is not intentional.   The misplacement of the documents took plce during the shifting of the office of the advocate, so the delay may be condoned. 

4.         This argument is not avail.  A period of 30 days has been provided for filing an appeal against the order of the District Forum. The proviso therein permits the State Commission to entertain an appeal after the expiry of the period of 30 days if it is satisfied that there is “Sufficient cause” for not filing the appeal within the prescribed period. The expression or “sufficient cause” has not been defined in the Act rightly so, because it would vary from facts and circumstances of each case.

5.         It has been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, 2012 (2) CPC 3 (SC),  which is as under:-

“It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for filing appeals and revisions in Consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the Consumer disputes will get defeated, if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Foras”.

6.       Taking into account the ground taken by the appellant in the application for condonation of delay and the settled principle of law, we do not find it a fit case to condone the delay of 238 days in filing of the appeal. Hence, the application of the appellant is liable to be dismissed.

7. In brief, the complainant was having an electricity connecting bearing No.G2756 at his residence which was disconnected on the request of the complainant by the Opposite Parties (O.Ps.) on 05.07.2009 after order of PDCO.  At the time of disconnection, the outstanding bill was Rs.8725/-.  There was another electricity connection installed in the Blue Gay Service in the name of the complainant vide account No.GG21-1724-A.  The complaint received a bill against the account No.GG21-1724-A, of amount of Rs.1,01,194/- in the month of November 2009 in which Rs.92949/- was included as amount due  on account No.G2756 which stood disconnected.  This amount alongwith surcharge and penalty etc. became Rs.1,01,194/-. The complainant requested the O.Ps. to delete the amount ofRs.92949/- from the bill, but, O.ps. refused to accept the same. Aggrieved by this, the complainant approached the District Forum for the redressal of his aforesaid grievance.

8.       Accordingly to the O.Ps. an electric connection was installed in the name of the complainant and the same was disconnected on 31.01.2008 due to non payment of electricity bill of Rs.55799/-.  Thereafter, the audit party of the O.Ps. audited the complainant’s account and an amount of Rs.36670/- were shown to be recovered from the complainant.  So the complainant became defaulter for the total amount of Rs.92949/- and after adding the surcharge outstanding payment of bill increased to Rs.1,01,194/-.  O.Ps. denied all other allegations of the complainant and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint, to which the learned District forum agreed and vide order dated 19.03.2014 the complaint was dismissed.

9.       Against the impugned order dated 19.03.2014, the complainant has filed appeal before us contending that at the time of disconnection the department on the request of the appellant did not show any readings or bill to the appellant but later on the respondent added the amount of Rs.92949/- and then increased to rs.1,01,194/- in the account of the  complainant without any documentary proof.  The O.Ps.-respondents have reiterated their original stand.

10.     On merits, it is evident from the record that the appellant failed to deposit the bill amounting to Rs.8725/- relating to his electricity account No. G 2756, which he got disconnected in the year 2009 without clearing the dues.  The O.Ps. rightly added this amount to his second account No.GG21-1724-A, which also stood in his own name. Since, for number of years, the appellant did not pay this amount, abviously the arrears increased and ultimately by adding surcharge and penalty it  became Rs.1,01,194/-. This amount can legally be recovered by the O.Ps. and in doing the same there is no deficiency in service on their part.  Therefore, the complaint has rightly been dismissed by the District Forum.  Agreeing with the same, we do not find any merit in the appeal and we dismiss the same, which otherwise also deserves to be dismissed on the ground of inordinate delay.

11.     The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

 

February 16th, 2016                   Urvashi Agnihotri                                   R.K.Bishnoi,                                                     Member                                                Judicial Member                                                Addl. Bench                                          Addl.Bench

S.K.