STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW
APPEAL NO. 564 OF 2015
(Against the judgment and order dated 13-10-2011 in Complaint
Case No. 22/2010 of the District Consumer Forum, Lalitpur )
Hariharsharan
S/o Shri Baijnath Prasad Mishra
R/o Village Kalyanpura
Side Gram Muhara
Tehsil Talbehat
District Lalitpur
...Appellant
Vs.
Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd.
Through Executive Engineer
Vidyut Vitaran Khand, Lalitpur
District Lalitpur
Office Civil Lines, Station Road
Lalitpur
...Respondent
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHTER HUSAIN KHAN, PRESIDENT
HON’BLE MRS. BAL KUMARI, MEMBER
For the Appellant : Sri Vishwas Saraswat, Advocate.
For the Respondent :
Dated : 28-11-2016
JUDGMENT
MR. JUSTICE A. H. KHAN, PRESIDENT (ORAL)
Present appeal has been filed under Section-15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against judgment and order dated 13-10-2011 passed by District Consumer Forum, Lalitpur in Complaint Case No. 22/2010 Hari Harsharan V/s Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited whereby said complaint has been dismissed.
Appellant is complainant of said complaint. He has filed this appeal alongwith application for delay condonation. Notice has been sent to the respondent on application for condonation of delay. Same has not been returned unserved. As such, service of notice is held sufficient on respondent.
:2:
We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant on application for condonation of delay in appeal.
It has been contended by learned Counsel for the appellant that on 13-10-2011 the District Consumer Forum has dismissed the complaint. Thereafter on legal advice of advocate the appellant/complainant filed case before Electricity Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhansi which was registered as Case No. 19/2014 Sri Hariharsharan V/s Executive Engineer. This case was dismissed by Electricity Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhansi on 06-12-2014 on the basis of previously instituted complaint before District Consumer Forum, Lalitpur. Thereafter the appellant obtained certified copy of the impugned judgment and order dated 13-10-2011 and filed this appeal.
It has been contended by learned Counsel for the appellant that the appellant has not deliberately delayed filing of appeal before State Commission. The delay in filing of appeal has taken place only due to wrong legal advice whereby the appellant was advised to file complaint before Electricity Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhansi.
It has been contended by learned Counsel for the appellant that there is sufficient ground to condone delay of appeal and to decide appeal on merit.
Learned Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on following judicial pronouncements of Hon’ble Apex Court.
- AIR 1996 SC 148 – Deputy Collector, Northern Sub-Division, Panaji V/s Comumidade of Bambolim.
- (1996) 6 Supreme Court Cases 100 – Rameshwarlal V/s Municipal Council, Tonk and others.
Learned Counsel for the appellant has further placed reliance on judgment of Hon’ble High Court, Rajasthan rendered in the case of Surajbhan V/s Sadul Textiles reported in AIR 1988 Raj.164
We have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the appellant.
In the case of Rameshwarlal V/s Municipal Council, Tonk and others
:3:
(supra) at the time of filing writ petition the limitation for civil suit had not expired. The limitation expired during pendency of writ petition. In such circumstances Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the entire time from the date of institution of writ petition till its disposal should be excluded for purpose of limitation under Section-14 of the Limitation Act 1963.
In the case of Deputy Collector, Northern Sub-Divison, Panaji V/s Comunidade of Bambolim (supra) the appellant was pursuing remedy on the basis of wrong legal advice whereas he should have pursued under CPC. In such circumstances the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the delay should be condoned.
In the case of Surajbhan V/s Sadul Textiles (supra) the case was wrongly instituted at Delhi and appeal was prosecuted in Delhi on the basis of legal advice. In such circumstances the Rajasthan High Court has held that appellant is entitled to exclusion of entire time taken in prosecution of remedy at Delhi.
In present case the District Consumer Forum has passed impugned judgment and order dated 30-10-2011 in Complaint Case No. 22/2010 Hari Harsharan V/s Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited. It has not been stated on behalf of appellant that appellant had no notice of impugned judgment and order dated 30-10-2011. Section-15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 provides limitation of 30 days for filing appeal before State Commission. Thus the limitation of appeal against this impugned judgment and order was till 29-11-2011. Appellant has filed complaint before the Electricity Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhansi in year 2014 much after expiry of limitation of appeal. Limitation for appeal was not continuing at the time of filing of this complaint before Electricity Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhansi. Further more the Electricity Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhansi has rejected the complaint of appellant on 06-12-2014. Thereafter the appellant has obtained certified copy of the impugned judgment and order of District Consumer Forum, Lalitpur on 06-02-2015 and has filed appeal before State Commission on 24-03-2015. Appellant has not shown any reason of delay arising after the judgment and
:4:
order dated 06-12-2014 passed by Electricity Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhansi.
As mentioned above the appellant has filed complaint before Electricity Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhansi much after expiry of limitation prescribed for appeal against impugned judgment and order passed by the District Consumer Forum, Lalitpur and has not given any reason for delay in filing complaint before the Electricity Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhansi. As such considering all facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that appellant is not entitled to get benefit of the proposition laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in above cases. The appellant has failed to show sufficient reason for delay in filing of appeal against the impugned judgment and order.
In view of above application for condonation of delay moved by the appellant is rejected.
Appeal is dismissed as time barred.
Let copy of this order be made available to the parties within 15 days positively as per rules.
( JUSTICE A H KHAN )
PRESIDENT
( SMT. BAL KUMARI )
MEMBER
Pnt.
