NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

                                                                                                NEW DELHI

 

REVISION PETITION  NO. 2696   OF  2002

(From the order dated    2.12.02 in First Appeal No.2219/02

State Commission  Haryana)

 

 

Ashok Kumar                                                                            …         Petitioner         

 

Vs.

 

HVPNL                                                                                     …         Respondent

 

BEFORE:

 

                        HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D.P. WADHWA,   PRESIDENT

                        MRS. RAJYALAKSHMI RAO, MEMBER.

                        MR. B.K. TAIMNI, MEMBER,

                        HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. GUPTA, MEMBER.

 

Limitation – condonation of delay – it is not the section 5  of Limitation Act  but Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which is applicable – State Commission condoning the delay on mere statement ‘for reasons stated in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act’ delay is condoned – non-application of mind  resulting in miscarriage of justice  - it is not the law that  irrespective of any  sufficient cause delay is to be condoned  when particularly valuable right has accrued to the consumer who is pitted against the might of the State Authority.

 

 

For the petitioner                     :           Mr. G.L. Malik, Advocate

 

For the respondent                  :           Mr. Bharat Singh Advocate

                                                            for Mr. N.K. Jain, Advocate.

 

 

                                                O R D E R

 

DATED THE     25th  April,  2003.

 

 

JUSTICE D.P. WADHWA, J.(PRESIDENT)

 

 

                        It is the complainant who is the petitioner before us.  He is aggrieved by the order of the State Commission condoning delay of 357 days  in filing the appeal against the order of the District Forum by the respondent-opposite party.   No reasons have been given in the order  of the State Commission as to why the  delay  was being condoned except to say that it was condoned “for reasons  stated in the application  under Section 5 of the Limitation Act”. If we  now refer to the application seeking condonation of delay  it merely states that the appeal cannot be  filed  unless there is approval of the legal remembrancer  of the opposite party at panchkula.  Admittedly, the order of the District Forum  is dated 11.7.2001 and the appeal was filed after delay of 357 days.  It is stated that  the copy of the order was  received on 3.8.2002.   Thereafter, steps were taken to file the appeal.  The application does not show as to how it is  said that the order dated 11.7.2001 was received only on 3.8.2002.   Yet it is stated in the application that there is a delay of 105 days in filing the appeal.   There is hardly  any cause  much less sufficient cause mentioned in the application to condone the delay.   Yet the State Commission without examining the application in its proper perspective  condoned the delay.    Reference was made by the learned counsel for the respondent to a few decisions of the Supreme Court to contend that  Courts should be liberal  to condone the delay.  These judgments are reported as (1998) 7 SCC 123 [N. Balakrishnan  vs. M. Krishnamurthy], (1996) 3 SCC 132 [State of Haryana  vs. Chandra Mani & Ors.] and (1996) 10 SCC 634 [Special Tehsildar, Land Acquisition, Kerala vs. K.V. Ayisumma] .  We do not think  Supreme Court has laid the law that irrespective of any sufficient  cause delay be condoned particularly when valuable right has accrued to the consumer who is pitted against the might of the State Authority.  Common  thread that runs through these judgments is that grounds of  condonation should be acceptable.   When  there are no grounds to condone the delay  discretion in favour of the applicant cannot be exercised.  Once sufficient cause to condone the delay is made out number of days of delay  is not quite  material.   We are of the view  that exercise of jurisdiction by the State Commission was not correct and it has led to miscarriage of justice.

                        Moreover, the complaint pertained to excessive bill  for electricity.   It  is not that it was the complainant  who consumed electricity for which such a bill was given to him.  It so happened  that the son of the complainant purchased property from one Bodan Raj who had electric connection and where there were arrears of electricity.  Complainant had nothing to do with that property and he had a separate meter at a separate premises.  Strangely the arrears respecting to  the bill of Bodan Raj were added to the bill of the complainant.   When the complainant lodged his protest first time the amount of the bill of the meter of Bodan Raj was deleted.  Yet again a bill for the further period was given and again the arrears  pertaining to the electric meter of  Bodan Raj added to the meter of the complainant.   Meters are different so are the premises.   Complainant has nothing to do with the purchase of the property  of  Bodan Raj by his son.   There  is nothing on  the record as to how the respondent HVPNL (Haryana Vidyudt) Pradhikaran Ltd.)  adopted such a posture.  

                        Accordingly this revision petition is allowed.   The order of the State Commission is set aside and the appeal of the HVPNL before the State Commission is dismissed as barred by limitation.

 

………………………………………J

(D.P. WADHWA)

                      PRESIDENT

 

………………………………………

(RAJYALAKSHMI RAO)

                       MEMBER

 

                        …………………………………….

(B.K. TAIMNI)

                      MEMBER

 

 

……………………………………J

(K.S.GUPTA )

                      MEMBER