Haryana

StateCommission

A/1362/2017

UHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

VINOD KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

N.K. BAJAJ

06 Jun 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                                                 

                                                         First Appeal No.1362 of 2017

                                                 Date of Institution: 13.11.2017

                                                               Date of Decision: 06.06.2022

 

1. XEN, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Jhajjar.
2. Sub Divisional Officer (Operation) UHBVNL, City Sub-Division, City Jhajjar, Distt.Jhajjar.

…..Appellants

Versus

Vinod Kumar S/o Sh.Puran Singh, R/o Mohalla Beri Gate, Jhajjar, Tehsil and Distt.Jhajjar.

…..Respondent

CORAM:    S.P. Sood, Judicial  Member

                    Suresh Chander Kaushik, Member

                   

Present:-    Mr.Sikander Bakshi proxy counsel for Mr. N.K.Bajaj,Advocate for the appellant.

                   Mr.Sandeep Kotla Advocate alongwith Mr.K.V.Verma,  Advocate for the respondent.

 

                                                 ORDER

S P SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          The present appeal No.1362 of 2017 has been filed against the impugned order dated 05.04.2017 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhajjar (In short  now “District Commission”) in complaint case No.228 of 2016, which was disposed of accordingly.

2.      There is a total delay of 186 days in filing  and re-filing of the appeal.  An appellant has filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act (in short “Act”)  for condonation of delay of  186 days wherein,  it is alleged that  District commission, Jhajjar has passed an order dated 05.04.2017, which was delivered on 11.04.2017.  After receiving the copy of order, the SDO has sent the copy of the order to Legal Department as well as other higher officers for taking appropriate decision regarding filing of appeal. The legal department and the legal remembrance advised the department to file an appeal against the impugned order. The concerned advocate was engaged and intimated to file the appeal vide letter dated  17.05.2017 and concerned SDO was advised to contact the advocate alongwith entire record. The appeal was prepared and sent for vetting and signatures at the end of the appellants and the same was vetted accordingly and filed before this Commission, so it is clear that this is procedural delay not intentional or with malafide intention. Thus, delay of 186 days in filing  and re-filing of the present appeal be condoned.

3.         Arguments Heard. File perused.

4.         Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that after receiving the copy of order dated  05.04.2017, the SDO has sent the copy of the order to Legal Department as well as other higher officers for taking appropriate decision regarding filing of appeal. The legal department and the legal remembrance advised the department to file an appeal against the impugned order. The concerned advocate was engaged and intimated to file the appeal vide letter dated  17.05.2017 and concerned SDO was advised to contact the advocate alongwith entire record.  The appeal was prepared and sent for vetting and signatures. The appeal was vetted and filed before this Commission. Due to the above said reasons, the appeal could not be filed, so the delay may be condoned. 

5.         This argument is not available.  A period of 30 days has been provided for filing an appeal against the order of the District Commission. The proviso therein permits the State Commission to entertain an appeal after the expiry of the period of 30 days if it is satisfied that there is “Sufficient cause” for not filing the appeal within the prescribed period. The expression of sufficient cause has not been defined in the Act rightly so, because it would vary from facts and circumstances of each case.

6.                         The inordinate delay of 186 days cannot be condoned in the light of the following judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

          The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others, AIR, 1977 Supreme Court 1221 has held that;

“Section 5 of the Limitation Act is a hard task-master and judicial interpretation has encased it within a narrow compass. A large measure of case-law has grown around S.5, its highlights being that one ought not easily to take away a right which has accrued to a party by lapse of time and that therefore a litigant who is not vigilant about his rights must explain every days delay.”

          The Hon’ble National Commission in case Government of U.T. Electricity Department & Others versus Ram Lubhai, II(2006) CPJ 104 has held that:-

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 15 –Appeal –Maintainability – Limitation –Condonation of delay– Resjudicata –Appeal filed after a delay of 44 days –Plea of procedural delay in getting approval for filing appeal – Appeal filed by complainant against order of District Forum decided and copy of order dispatched to parties prior to filing of appeal by opposite party –Appeal and application for condonation of delay dismissed –Matter once finally concluded by any Court cannot be reopened by same Court.”

               In R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari 2009 (2) Scale 108, it has   been observed:

         “We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition.”

      In Ram Lal and Ors.  Vs.  Rewa Coalfields  Ltd., AIR  1962 Supreme Court 361, it has been observed;

“It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by S.5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the enquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant.”

         

7.      Taking into consideration the pleas raised by appellants in the application for condonation of delay and settled principle of law, this Commission does not find it a fit case to condone delay of 186 days in filing of the appeal. Hence application filed for condonation of delay  in appeal No.1362 of 2017 is dismissed.  

8.       The brief facts of the case are that he (complainant) was having electricity connection bearing No.3431111111.  He has been making the payments of bills regularly.   The opposite parties sent wrong bill of Rs.29,210/- in the month of December 2014.  He requested the  OPs to correct the bill as per supply consumed by him, but, to no effect. Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

9.      O.Ps. filed reply and  alleged that rates of  SOP and FSA were revised by UHBVNL, Panchkula by way of circular. The bill of Rs.29,210/- was rightly issued against him.  He paid Rs.20,000/- on 01.05.2015 and again Rs.20,000/- on 04.01.2016,which was adjusted in his account.  It was denied that any exorbitant bill was issued to him. Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs

10.    After hearing both the parties, the learned District Commission, Jhajjar has disposed of the complaint vide order dated 05.04.2017. Relevant para is reproduced below:-

“In view of aforesaid discussion and findings, we are of the considered view that the disputed bill dated 10.01.2015 Ex.P-2 showing amount of Rs.29,210/- as sundry charges, is wrong, illegal and thus set aside. Accordingly, the respondents are hereby directed not to charge the amount of Rs.29,210/- from the complainant and correct the disputed bill dated 10.01.2015 Ex.P-2 and onward bills of complainant accordingly after adjustment of amount already found deposited  by the complainant. The complainant is also entitled for a sum of Rs.5500/- on account of litigation expenses for the present unwanted and unwarranted litigation only due to the deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. The Complaint stands disposed of accordingly.”

11.    Feeling aggrieved therefrom, OPs-appellants have preferred this appeal.

12.    This argument have been advanced by Sh.SikanhderBakshi proxy counsel or Shri N.K.Bajaj, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Shri Sandeep Kotla, learned counsel for the respondent alongwith Sh.K.V.Verma, Advocate. With their kind assistance entire records including that of the District Commission and evidence led on behalf of  both the parties has also been properly perused and examined.

13.    Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that  rates of  SOP and FSA were revised by UHBVNL, Panchkula by way of circular  and according to the circular bill of Rs.29,210/- dated 10.01.2015 was rightly issued against him. Thus, the impugned order dated  05.04.2017 be set aside and appeal be allowed.

14.    On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently argued that OPs have not placed on record any circular, which will show the increase of rates of SOP and FSA. Thus, the bill dated 10.01.2015 amounting to Rs.29,210/- was illegal. The learned District Forum had rightly disposed of the complaint. The respondent prayed that the appeal be dismissed as prayed for.

15.    This Commission does not concur with the submission made on behalf of the appellants.   The bill dated 10.01.2015 Ex P-2 were being issued  to the complainant on average basis.  The appellants have not placed on record any circular, which would show the increase of rates of SOP and FSA.  Learned District Commission rightly dispose of the complaint.

16.    Resultantly, the contentions raised on behalf of the present appellants stands rejected as rendered no assistance and found to be untenable and the order passed by the learned District Commission does not suffer from any illegality or perversity and is well reasoned and accordingly stands maintained for all intents and purposes.  Hence, appeal  stands dismissed on both counts  delay as well as on merits.

17.    The statutory amount of Rs.2750/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant-respondent against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

06th  June, 2022     Suresh Chander Kaushik                        S. P. Sood                                                    Member                                                         Judicial Member    

 

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)