APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS

ORDER

C.VISWANATH

1. The present Revision Petition is filed by the Petitioner under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”) in Appeal No. 1542 of 2016 dated 21.12.2016.

    

2. According to the Petitioner/Complainant, hetook power connection of 3 H.P. for his shop whose connection number was 070631 and booking number was 3409. The aforesaid connection continued for many years. The Petitioner through the same connection was running the kharad machine and welding machine and earned his livelihood.Since the Petitioner defaulted in paying the bill, on 09.02.2015 the Respondent/Opposite Party officials disconnected the power supply and also took away the meter without giving any notice and information. Also, the checking report prepared at that very time contains no signatures of the Petitioner or of any other person on his behalf. The Petitioner was later told by the officials of the Respondent that the bill of Rs.40000/- was due, and if the same would be deposited, they would re-install the meter and his connection would again be restored. On 19.02.2015, the Petitioner paid Rs.20,000/- to the Respondent and after deducting Rs.300/-, they deposited Rs.19,700/-. Later on 30.06.2015, the Petitioner deposited the full amount which was due and then sought re-installation of the electric connection. They, however, did not restore the connection and when the Petitioner informed them that he would take recourse to legal action against the officials of the Respondent, they got annoyed and sought a further recovery of Rs.1,92,549/- and threatened him with more action. The Respondent neither gave any notice to the Petitioner while checking the meter nor regarding inspection report. The contention of the Respondent that the meter was sealed in the presence of Pawan, who was a worker of the Petitioner, was also wrong and denied. A Complaint was, thus, filed by the Petitioner alleging deficiency of service on the part of the Respondent.

    

3. The Complaint was contested by the Respondent who contended that the Petitioner failed to deposit the bill amounts, while the consumption of electricity was admitted. On 09.02.2015 departmental team consisting of Sub-Divisional officer, 3 Junior Engineers J.M.T. and other line staff was present during checking of the meter and receipt for the amount due was given. The Petitioner admitted in the Complaint that the Respondent sent an assessment of Rs.1,92,549/- on the basis of their checking the meter.In the presence of Pawan, worker of the Petitioner, the meter was sealed and the signature of Pawan was taken on the checking report.It was contended that theft and assessment of electricity does not come within the scope and ambit of the Consumer Protection Act as per provisions of Section126 and 127 of the Electricity Act 2003. The Learned District Forum ignoring the law propounded by the Apex Court decided the case without jurisdiction and the order is not maintainable.

    

4. District Forum, vide order 29.03.2016, allowed the Complaint ex-parte against the Respondent on the ground that Petitioner succeededin proving the case by showing deficiency in service on partof the Respondent. The Respondent was directed to quash the notice dated 29.05.2015and notcollect the amount of Rs. 1,92,549/-from the Petitioner, within one month from the date of receiving the copy of the order.The Respondent should also restore the electricity connection of the Petitioner by reinstalling the meter. In addition, the Respondent shall also pay Rs.10000/- as cost for mental harassment and Rs.5000/- towards legal expenses. Respondent would be liable to pay an interest of 9% per annum on Rs.10000/- from the date of this judgement till the making of payment.

    

5. Aggrieved by the order passed by the District Forum, the Respondent filed an Appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission, vide order dated 21.12.2016, allowed the Appeal of the Respondent and the order passed by the District Forum was set-aside on the ground of non-maintainability. It was stated that a “Complaint” against the assessment made by an assessing officer under Section 126 or against the offences committed under Sections 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003 was not maintainable before a Consumer Forum.

    

6. Aggrieved by the order passed by the State Commission, the Petitioner filed the present Revision Petition before this Commission.

    

7. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. I have also carefully gone through the evidence placed on record.

    

8. The Petitioner filed I.A. No. 19053 of 2018 for condonation of delay.According to the Petitioner there is a delay of 11 days in filing the Revision Petition.He applied for a certified copy of the impugned on 17.03.2018 and received the same on 10.07.2018.In the very next paragraph he states that he applied for certified copy on 12.01.2017 and received it on 10.07.2018.However, as per record application for extra copy was made only on 31.07.2018. It shows how casually he has filed the application for condonation of delay.It is also seen from the record that the Petitioner was represented by Sri Arvind Kumar on 21.12.2016 when the impugned order was pronounced before the State Commission.Counsel for the Petitioner was well aware of the impugned order of State Commission as back as 21.12.2016.As per record, it is also found that the free copy was issued on 12.01.2017 and the Revision Petition was filed on 10.10.2018.Accordingly, there is a delay of 546 days in filing the Revision Petition after deducting 90 days’ time of filing the Revision Petition.

    

9. From above, it is seen that the delay in filing the Revision Petition is inordinate and no sufficient cause has been made by the Petitioner for condoning delay in filing the present Revision Petition. The objective of expeditious adjudication of the Consumer disputes gets defeated, if this Court was to entertain highly belated Petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Fora.

    

10. Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority” [2012(2) CPC (SC)] observed as under:-

    “While deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for filing the appeals and revisions in Consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the Consumer disputes will get defeated, if this Court was to entertain highly belated Petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Foras.”

     

    In “R. B. Ramalingam Vs. R. B Bhavaneshwari, 2009 (2) Scale 108”, the Apex Court has observed thus:-

    “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 emphasise 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 condition precedent for the exercise of the 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.”

     

11. In view of the above, IA No. 19053/2018 for condonation of delay is dismissed and consequentely the Revision Petition is also dismissed being barred by limitation.