Haryana

StateCommission

A/913/2015

RANBIR SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

VAIBHAV SAHNI

17 Nov 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                 

                           First Appeal No.913 of 2015

                           Date of Institution:20.10.2015

                           Date of Decision: 17.11.2015

 

Ranbir Singh son of Shrichand, resident of Mohammadpur, Majra, Tehsil Beri, District Jhajjar, Haryana.

 

                                                          …Appellant

                           Versus

 

1. J.E, Uttri Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Sub Division, Jahahgarh, Division Beri.

 

2.    S.D.O, Uttri Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Division Beri, District Jhajjar.

 

3.    Ravinder Son of Om Parkash son of Dhanna Ram, Resident of Mohammadpur, Majra, Tehsil Beri, District Jhajjar, Haryana.

                                                     …Respondents

 

 

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

              Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

 

Present:  Mr. Vaibhav Sahni, Advocate for the appellant.

 

                            O R D E R

 

R.K. BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          It was alleged by the complainant that he was having an electric connection bearing A/C.No.B051/0480 with the opposite parties (O.Ps.) and paid all bills upto 13.03.1997. He sold his house to Smt.Kamla Devi widow of Dhana Ram.  O.Ps. issued bill of Rs.9273/- dated 12.12.2005 and Rs.2,38,358/- dated 22.10.2006 to the complainant.  He requested the Ops to charge the bills from respondent No.3 as it was issued after 14.03.1997.  He served legal notice dated 27.05.2013 to all the respondents, but, to no use.

2.      O.P Nos.1 and 2 filed joint reply and respondent No.3 filed separate reply.  It was admitted by O.P.Nos.1 and 2 that bill of Rs.2,38,358/- was sent to him  as per rules of the Nigam.  The department was entitled to recover the balance amount from him or from the respondent No.3.

3.      O.P.No.3 stated that he was grandson of the purchaser Smt.Kamla  Devi.  There was no electricity meter installed at the premises of the respondent No.3 prior to electricity connection No.0779 was taken by him.  There was no meter at the time of delivery of possession nor it was mentioned in the written receipts.

4.      After hearing both the parties learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhajjar (In short “District Forum”) allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 15.09.2015 and directed as under:-

“Therefore, we direct the respondent No.1 and 2 to intimate the uptodate outstanding dues of connection No.B051/0480 to the complainant as well as to the respondent No.3 (under writing) within a period of one mojth.  Thereafter, it is directed that further within one month of complainant, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and also the respondent No.3 shall bear the outstanding dues proportionately i.e. 1/3^rd amount shall be borne by complainant, 1/3^rd amount by respondent Nos.1 and 2 and 1/3^rd amount of outstanding dues shall be borne by respondent NO.3 equally. The complaint is disposed of accordingly.”

5.      Feeling aggrieved therefreom appellant-complainant has preferred this appeal.

6.      Arguments heard.  File perused.

7.      Firstly it is to be seen whether the complaint was filed in time or not.  If the complaint is time barred there is no necessity to give findings on the merits. Honble Supreme Court has opined in State Bank of India Vs. M/s B.S. Agricultural Industries (I) reported in 2009(2) CPJ 1, that 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.

8.      As per facts mentioned above, it is clear that complainant was having connection No.B051/0480 and paid all the bills upto 14.03.1997. The disputed bill in question was issued on 12.12.2005 for Rs.9273/- and Rs.2,38,358/- dated 22.10.2006, whereas complaint was filed in the year 2013. As per complainant cause of action accrued on 27.05.2013, when complainant issued legal notice to the opposite parties. As per facts mentioned above, it is clear that cause of action accrued in 1997 and worst to worst in 2006, whereas complaint has been filed in 2008. He was supposed to file complaint within two years as per Section-24 A  of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (In short “Act”).  So the, complaint is highly belated.  It has no where come on the file that complainant filed an application to condone delay in filing complaint. When no application for condonation of delay was filed and delay was not condoned, complaint was not maintainable.  When complaint is time barred the same is liable to be dismissed only on this ground as opined by Hon’ble National Commission in revision petition No.2394 of 2011 titled as  Uday Shankar Varma Vs. Continental Airlines Inc. decided on 04^th July, 2013.  Relevant portion is as under:-

“Admittedly, in the present case the cause of action has accrued to the complainant on 18.2.2008, when the complainant lodged his complaint with the opposite parties for the missing of his luggage at New Delhi Airport, whereas he has filed the present complaint before the District Forum, Gurgaon on 10.5.2010. It is also an admitted case of the complainant that he has filed the complaint before the District Forum, New Delhi which was withdrawn by him on 27.4.2010 and at the time of withdrawal, no liberty was granted to the complainant to file a fresh complaint before the District Forum, Gurgaon on the same cause of action. It was a simpliciter withdrawal of the complaint, which was allowed by the District Forum, New Delhi to file a fresh complaint. It is nowhere pleaded or sought by the complainant that he wants to file a fresh complaint before the District Forum, Gurgaon. Thus under the circumstances, when the complainant was put up before the District Forum, Gurgaon, it was already time barred because cause of action has accrued to the complainant on 18.2.2008 and the fresh complaint before the District Forum, Gurgaon was filed on 10.5.2010. It was further admitted case of the parties that no application was filed by the complainant under Section 14 (2) of the Limitation Act seeking the condonation of delay for agitating the matter before the Forum, which had no jurisdiction to try the complainant. In the absence of any application, the District Forum, Gurgaon was left with no other option, but to dismiss the complaint as time barred. As per the provisions of Section 24A (1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, no complaint can be entertained by the District Forum after the expiry of the period of two years from the date of accruing of the cause of action, unless there is sufficient reason to condone the delay in filing the complaint is filed or District Forum condoned the delay.

9.      This case is squarely covered by this opinion. Admittedly, the present complaint was filed by the complainant before the District Forum after a gap of more than 5 years from accruing cause of action, which on the face of it appears to be hopelessly time barred.

10.    The Learned District Forum failed to take into consideration all these aspects. In these circumstances, impugned order dated 15.09.2015 cannot be sustained and the same is hereby set aside.  The complaint is dismissed as time barred.

 

November 17th, 2015 Urvashi Agnihotri                 R.K.Bishnoi,                                                   Member                                              Judicial Member                                                    Addl. Bench                                        Addl.Bench                         

S.K.