Haryana

StateCommission

A/777/2018

UHBVNL AND OTHERS - Complainant(s)

Versus

KARTAR SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

B.S.NEGI

10 Dec 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

First Appeal No.777 of 2018

Date of Institution:15.06.2018

Date of decision:10.12.2019

 

1.      U.H.B.V.N.L. through J.E. Incharge, S/office, UHBVNL Ltd. Farmana, District, Sonepat.

 

2.      SDO UHBVN Ltd., Sub Division, Devipura, Gohana,  Distt. Sonepat.

 

3.      XEN Enforcement UHBVN Ltd., Rohtak.

…Appellants

Versus

 

Kartar Singh S/o Mauji Ram, R/o Village Farmana, Tehsil Kharkhoda, Distt. Sonepat.

…Respondent

 

CORAM:   Mr.Harnam Singh Thakur, Judicial Member
                   Mrs.Manjula, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.B.S.Negi, Advocate counsel for the appellants.

                  

                                      O R D E R

 

HARNAM SINGH THAKUR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

The appeal has been preferred against the order dated 27.10.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat (in short ‘District Forum’) vide which the complaint was allowed  and opposite party is directed to charge the amount upon the  load of complainant on minimum consumption basis for six months after considering the same as domestic supply and not to charge or recover the penalty amount of Rs.210801/- from the complainant.

2.      The brief facts giving rise to the complaint are that the complainant is having electricity tubewell connection bearing No. AP 03-1013M, which was installed by the O.P.  The complainant’s son never used the electricity connection for construction purpose. In the month of 11/16, electricity tubewell connection stopped working and complainant shifted the said electricity connection at another place.  He deposited Rs.25000/- with the O.P.No.1 on 19.12.2016 for shifting the connection.  The O.Ps  have not installed the electricity meter despite several requests.  On 04.01.2017, vigilance team checked the electricity connection of the complainant and said that electricity connection was illegal and they issued false checking report dated 04.01.2017.  The O.Ps. issued a demand notice for Rs.210801/- on the basis of checking report.  Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

3.      Upon notice, opposite parties contested the complaint by way of filing of a written version.   O.Ps. alleged that  complainant has raised boundary wall of a banquet hall and was using the electricity for his purpose.  The checking was conducted as per the rules of the Nigam.  The demand notice dated 12.01.2017 amounting to Rs.210801/- was legal and genuine.  Thus, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

4.      An application for condonation of delay has also been filed.

5.      There is a delay of 182 days in filing the appeal.  Appellants have filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act (in short “Act”)  for condonation of delay of 182 days wherein,  it is alleged that   due to the administrative process for obtaining opinion for filing appeal and seeking sanction from higher authorities delay of 195 (delay mentioned in the application) days have been occurred in filing the present appeal. The delay in filing the appeal is neither intentional nor willful but on account of the reasons mentioned herein above.

6.      Arguments heard on application for condonation of delay as well as on merits of appeal. File perused.

7.      It is argued by learned counsel for the appellants that due to administrative process for obtaining opinion for filing appeal and seeking sanction from higher authorities delay of 195 (delay mentioned in the application) days have been occurred in filing the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that as per facts mentioned above, it is clear that delay in filing appeal is not intentional and may be condoned.

8.      However, the contention of learned counsel for appellants to condone delay is of no avail.  A period of 30 days has been provided for filing an appeal against the order of the District Forum. 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 and rightly so, because it would vary from facts and circumstances of each case. It is settled law that delay of each and every delay should be explained properly with some reasonable cause but in the appeal in hand. No reasonable ground and sufficient cause has been pleaded or proved.  Merely, the time taken for six months to obtain the sanction of higher authorities cannot be termed as sufficient cause. Thus, inordinate delay for more than 182 days, cannot be condoned as there is no justifiable reason or sufficient cause to condone the same.

9.      Here reliance can be placed on 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 2012 (2) CPC 3 (SC) – Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under:-

“It is also apposite to observe that 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 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”.

 

10.       Even on merits, this Commission do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by learned District Forum, Sonepat.  There is deficiency in service on the part of appellants as huge penalty amount of Rs.2,10,801/- is wrong and illegal, which has been imposed by the O.Ps-appellants.

11.       Thus, it can be safely concluded that in the complaint under appeal is badly time barred.  In view of the above, the application for condonation of delay for 182 days in filing the appeal is dismissed. I also do not find any illegality or fault in the finding given by the learned District Forum on merits. Appellant seems to have adopted a casual approach in filing the present appeal. The present appeal is without any merit and therefore dismissed in limine.

 

10th  December, 2019          Manjula                                 Harnam Singh Thakur                                                         Member                                 Judicial Member                            

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)