Haryana

StateCommission

RP/112/2016

PANDIT OMKAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

TARUN GUPTA

19 May 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

Revision Petition No: 112 of 2016

Date of Institution:      29.11.2016

Date of Decision:        19.05.2017

 

Pandit Omkar adopted son of Smt. Gaura w/o Sh. Kundan, Resident of Village Hansaka, Tehsil and District Rewari.

                                      Petitioner-Complainant

Versus

1.      Sub Divisional Officer, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Dharuhera, Sub Tehsil Dharuhera, Tehsil and District Rewari.

2.      Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Dharuhera, through Sub Divisional Officer.

3.      Ram Kishan, ALM, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Dharuhera, Sub Tehsil Dharuhera, Tehsil and District Rewari.

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

                                                                                                         

Argued by:          Shri Tarun Gupta, Advocate for petitioner.

                             Shri Sikandar Bakshi, Advocate for respondents.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB  SINGH, J  

 

By this revision petition, Pandit Omkar-complainant has impugned the following order dated June 08^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rewari (for short, ‘District Forum’):-

“The Decree Holder has prayed for the execution of the order dated 04.04.2003 passed by this forum.  No reason has been mentioned as to why the execution petition has been filed after a period of 12 years.  Hence, the application is accordingly dismissed being hopelessly time barred.”       

2.      Aforesaid order is erroneous factually as well as legally.  The complaint was decided by the District Forum vide order dated April 04^th, 2003.  Operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

          “10.   After going through the case file, documents placed on record and in view of the law referred above, Forum is of the considered view that respondents are grossly negligent and deficient in their services as they have not connected the wire which supplied electricity to complainant tubewell and also not restored the connection for a long period.  Forum opined that due to negligency and deficiency in service and also due to not restoring the tubewell connection by the respondents, complainant has suffered a loss of Rs.15,000/- of Bajra crop sown by the complainant inn his land measuring about 8 acres (40 kanals).  Further, Forum opened that complainant has suffered financial loss, mental and physical agony. Forum awards Rs.15,000/- as damages of crop, Rs.2,000/- as compensation for physical and mental agony and Rs.1,000/- as litigation charges to the complainant. Forum quashes the bill for an amount of Rs.1259/- issued by the respondents to the complainant. Forum further directs the respondents not to charge bills from the complainant for the period in which his connection/supply remained disconnected.”

 

3.      Aggrieved of the order, DHBVNL filed appeal No.2012 of 2003.  On December 18^th, 2003 following order was passed:-

          “Notice of civil misc. application for 27.2.2004. Realisation of compensation is stayed meanwhile.”

4.      Thereafter, the appeal was dismissed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.S. Madan, President (as he then was) vide order dated December 15^th, 2009.

5.      Till December 15^th, 2009 implementation of the order passed by the District Forum remained stayed.  After dismissal of the appeal, the complainant filed execution application before the District Forum.  In view of this, it cannot be said that the execution application was filed by the complainant after a period of 12 years as has been stated by the District Forum.  Otherwise too, it has been held in Prem Chandra Varshney Vs. Murarilal Sharma & Ors. 2007, (3), CLT, 681 passed by Hon’ble National Consumer Commission that the period of limitation prescribed for filing the execution application of any decree or order of any civil court is 12 years under Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is not applicable to execution proceedings before the Consumer Fora.  Consumer Protection Act, 1986 does not provide any limitation period for filing execution application.

6.      For the reasons recorded supra, the order under challenge is set aside and the revision petition is accepted.  The District Forum is directed to proceed in accordance with law and to dispose of the execution application expeditiously, preferably within three months from the date of receipt of this order. 

7.      The parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on June 12^th, 2017.

8.      Copy of this order be sent to the District Forum, Rewari.

 

 

Announced: 19.05.2017

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

UK