RESERVED

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P., Lucknow.

Appeal No.692 of 2005

Om Prakash Sharma s/o Sri Amichand Sharma,

R/o Village: Barauli Vasdevpur, P.O.: Khas,

District: Bulandshahar.                                    ...Appellant.

Versus

U.P.P.C.L., Electricity Distribution Division III,

Through Executive Engineer, Railway Road,

Bulandshahar.                                             ….Respondent.

Present:-

1- Hon’ble Sri A.K. Bose, Presiding Member.

2- Hon’ble Sri Sanjai Kumar, Member.

Sri S.K. Sharma for the appellant.

Sri Isar Husain for the respondent.

Date   14.7.2015

JUDGMENT

Sri A.K. Bose,  Member- Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 11.4.2005, passed by the Ld. DCDRF, Bulandshahar in complaint case No.320 of 2001, the appellant Om Prakash Sharma has preferred the instant appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Act 68 of 1986) on the ground that the impugned order is arbitrary, perverse and is bad in the eye of law. It was delivered without proper appreciation of law and/or application of mind, on the basis of surmises and conjunctures and therefore, it has been prayed that the same be set aside in the interest of justice otherwise he will suffer irreparable financial loss.

(2)

From perusal of the records, it transpires that the appellant Om Prakash Sharma obtained a 5 H.P. Electric connection, bearing no.1383/5686 from the respondent Power Corporation. However, he got the same disconnected on 27.5.1995. He had deposited a sum of Rs.100.00 towards disconnection fees vide receipt no.141667882. It has been alleged that after consolidation proceedings which took place subsequently in his village, he applied for reconnection of the aforesaid electric connection. The respondent, however, failed to reenergize  the connection which was disconnected on request on 27.5.1995. Aggrieved by this gross deficiency in service, the appellant/complainant filed complaint case no.320 of 2001 before the Ld. DCDRF, Bulandshahar. The Forum below, after due consideration all facts, circumstances and evidence dismissed the complaint on 11.4.2005. It was observed that a connection can be shifted or reenergized within 6 months of disconnection whereas, in the instant matter the application was moved in the year 1998 i.e. after a lapse of more than 3 years and, therefore, the respondent could not shift or reenergize the connection under rules and hence, there was not deficiency in service on its part. We have given due consideration on all material evidence available on record. The relationship of Consumer and Service Provider between the parties ended with the disconnection of the electricity on 27.5.1995. The facility of the reenergize the same also expired after 6 months of the de-energization.  

(3)

Besides this, the disconnection was made in the year 1995 and the complaint was filed in the year 2001. Thus, it was barred by the period of limitation as provided under Section 24 A of the Act 68 of 1986 also. The judgment and order is well reasoned. There is no irregularity and illegality in the order and, therefore, we are not inclined to interfere in it. Consequently, the appeal, being meritless, is liable to be dismissed.  

ORDER

          The appeal, being meritless, is dismissed.  No  order as to costs. Certified copy of the judgment be provided to the parties in accordance with rules.

         (A.K. Bose)                                (Sanjai Kumar)

    Presiding Member                             Member

Jafri PA-II

Court No.3