JUSTICE V.K.JAIN (ORAL)

          The petitioners who were engaged in manufacturing of saria, plates etc. had taken electric load of 209.75 KVA from the respondent. The said load was being used by them for manufacturing process.
Vide an order dated 21.08.1979 issued in exercise of the powers conferred upon it by section 22(b) of the Indian Electricity Act,
Government of Uttar Pradesh imposed certain restrictions on the use of electricity. In terms of clause 2 of the above-said order, a cut of  was imposed on the large and heavy power industrial consumers receiving power at 33 KV and above from Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board. The factory of the petitioners however continued to use the full load in contravention of the said order till the electricity was discontinued on 06.10.1979. The electricity to the factory of the complainant was restored on 17.10.1979. The electricity was again disconnected on 23.11.1979 on account of the complainant having used full sanctioned load of the electricity but was restored on 23.12.1979. The penalty imposed upon the Complainants was not paid and, therefore, the supply was discontinued on 02.02.1980 and was later on restored on 06.04.1980. The respondents raised demand of Rs.64,825/- against the complainants/petitioners towards penalty for contravention of the above referred order. The penalty was paid under protest in 3 installments, the last payment having been made in the year 1989. The complainants thereafter approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint seeking refund of the said amount with compensation.

2.      The complainant was resisted by the respondent primarily on the ground that the penalty had rightly been imposed upon the Complainants, they having contravened  the orders issued by the state government.

3.      The District Forum having allowed the consumer complaint the respondent approached the concerned State Commission by way of  an appeal. The appeal was allowed by the State Commission and the consumer complaint was consequently dismissed. Being aggrieved the petitioners are before this Commission.

3.      Admittedly, the last payment towards penalty was made by the petitioners on 28.02.1989. The consumer complaint before the District Forum, however,  came to be instituted in the year 1994. Section 24A was inserted in the Consumer Protection Act, w.e.f. 18.06.1993.  The afore-said provision, therefore, was not on the statue book at the time three years computed from 28.02.1989 expired.  The consumer complaint, therefore, ought to have been instituted latest by 28.02.1992 even if the limitation is computed from the date on which the last payment was made by the complainant. Having been instituted in the year 1994, after insertion of Section 24A into Consumer Protection Act,  the consumer complaint was clearly barred by limitation. No application seeking condonation of delay in Institution of the consumer complaint was filed.

4.      The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that plea of limitation was not raised by the respondents in the written version filed before the District Forum. However, even if such a plea is not taken the consumer forum is duty bound to examine whether a consumer complaint is within limitation or not and if it is found that the complaint is barred by limitation, the Forum is required to dismiss the complaint unless the delay is condoned in terms of proviso of section 24A of the Act. A reference in this regard can be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India Vs. B.S. Agricultural Industries, II (2009) CPJ 29 (SC) which to the extent it is relevant reads as under:

“The expression, `shall not admit a complaint' occurring in Section 24A is sort of a legislative command to the consumer forum to examine on its own whether the complaint has been filed within limitation period prescribed thereunder. As a matter of law, the consumer forum must deal with the complaint on merits only if the complaint has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action and if beyond the said period, the sufficient cause has been shown and delay condoned for the reasons recorded in writing. In other words, it is the duty of the consumer forum to take notice of Section 24A and give effect to it. 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.”

5.      Since the complaint was banned by limitation, it could not have been entertained and allowed by the  District Forum.  I therefore need not examine the question as to whether imposition of the penalty was justified or not. The revision petition is, therefore dismissed with no order as to costs.