ASHWANI KUMAR vs Chairman, Delhi Vidyut Board

THE present appeal, filed by the appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), is directed against order dated 8.10.2001, passed by District Forum-III, Janakpuri, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. 1619/2000 - Entitled Sh. Ashwani Kumar v. THE Chairman, Delhi Vidyut Board & Anr.

THE facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the appellant Shri Ashwani Kumar had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act averring therein that the appellant was residing at A-61, Vishnu Garden, Khyala Road, New Delhi for the last about 32 years and was a consumer in respect of electricity connection bearing K. No. 376988/DL, installed in the above said premises. In the complaint filed by the appellant before the District Forum the grievance of the appellant, in nutshell, was about the non-rectification of the electricity bill, issued by the respondent in respect of the above said electricity connection. In the complaint, filed by the appellant, it was prayed that the respondent be directed to issue a correct bill to the appellant and also to issue bills for correct amount in respect of the above said electricity connection in future also so as to provide economic and mental relief to the appellant. THE claim of the appellant in the District Forum was resisted by the respondents and in the reply/written version, filed on behalf of the respondents, it was stated that the dispute in question already stood resolved and the bill for the month of May, 1999 wherein a credit of Rs. 302.98 was given by the respondents to the appellant, had already been paid by the appellant on 16.7.1999. It was stated that thereafter the respondents were regularly sending the bills on consumption basis, giving adjustment in respect of all provisional bills charged during the period in question. It was stated that despite the fact that correct bills had been issued to the appellant, the appellant had not made any payment thereafter, resulting in accumulation of arrears to the tune of Rs. 1,559.24 upto September, 2000. It was stated that under the above circumstances the respondents had asked the appellant to make the payment of the legitimate dues to avoid disconnection of electricity due to non-payment. THE learned District Forum vide impugned order has held that the appellant has failed to show any defect or inaccuracy in the bills in question. On the basis of the above finding the learned District Forum has passed the impugned order rejecting the complaint, filed by the appellant. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 15 of the Act.

We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant at length on the question of admission of the present appeal and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. In terms of the provisions contained in Section 15 of the Act, a person, aggrieved by an order, made by the District Forum, can prefer an appeal against such order to the State Commission within a period of 30 days from the date of the order. However, proviso to Section 15 of the Act provides that the State Commission may entertain an appeal even after the expiry of the above said period of 30 days, if it is satisfied that there was ''sufficient cause'' for not filing the same within the above said period. The words ''sufficient cause'' occurring in proviso to Section 15 of the Act, are of utmost significance and as per settled law, culled out from various judicial decisions, the above expression ''sufficient cause'', though deserves to receive a liberal interpretation, yet, a just and equitable balance has to be maintained between the right secured by the respondent as a result of expiry of the prescribed period of limitation and the injustice of depriving the appellant of adjudication of his grievances on the merits of his appeal for causes beyond his reasonable control, which means the cause is bona fide and beyond the control of the appellant. Though, no hard and fast line can be drawn as to what affords ''sufficient cause'' in a given case yet, again, as per settled law, any cause which prevents a person from approaching the Court within time is ''sufficient cause''. In doing so, it is the test of a reasonable man in normal circumstances which has to be applied.

ADMITTEDLY, the present appeal has not been filed by the appellant within the prescribed period of 30 days because the order being impugned in the present proceedings was passed by the learned District Forum on 8.10.2001 and the present appeal has been filed by the appellant on 7.10.2002 i.e. after about one year of the passing on the impugned order. Therefore, the question requiring consideration on the threshold is as to whether the appellant has shown sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time within the meaning of proviso to Section 15 of the Act. The appellant, along with the appeal has also filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. The reason for not filing the appeal in time has been stated in para 2 of the above said application which reads as under : "2. That the delay occurred in filing the present appeal due to long illness of the mother and thereafter her death and other unavoidable circumstances beyond control of the appellant."

ON a perusal of the contents of the above para it is apparent that reason for not filing the appeal in time has been stated by the appellant as long illness of his mother and thereafter her death. No details have been given as to from which period to which period the mother of the appellant was lying ill and when she expired. ONly a bald statement has been made that the appeal could not be filed due to the long illness of the mother and thereafter her death. Even death certificate in support of the above contention has not been filed by the appellant for reasons best known to him. Moreover, in terms of the provisions contained in Sub-rule (4) of Rule 8 of the Delhi Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 it has been provided that when an appeal is presented after the expiry of the period of limitation as specified in the Act, the memorandum of appeal shall be accompanied by an application supported by an affidavit setting forth the facts on which the appellant relies to satisfy the Commission that he had ''sufficient cause'' for not preferring the appeal within the period of limitation. No such affidavit has been filed by the appellant in support of the above application. Delay in filing the appeal cannot be condoned as a matter of generosity. Proof of ''sufficient cause'' is a condition precedent for the exercise of such discretion by the Appellate Authority. In our above views, we stand fortified by a decision of the Hon''ble National Commission in case Vice Chairman, Delhi Development Authority v. O.P. Gauba, reported as III (1995) CPJ 18 (NC)=1986-96 CONSUMER-2731 (NS). In the presence of the above facts and the position explained above, in our opinion, whatever liberal interpretation might be put on the words ''sufficient cause'' it would be impossible for us to hold that there was no negligence on the part of the appellant. In our opinion, as a matter of fact, the appellant has miserably failed to show ''sufficient cause'' for condoning the delay in filing the present appeal and, therefore, the above application, seeking condonation of delay in filing the present appeal, is hereby rejected. The present appeal, filed by the appellant, besides being barred by limitation is also devoid of substance on merits because on the basis of material on record it is apparent that the respondents in compliance with the orders passed by the District Forum in the earlier complaint had already given a credit of Rs. 302.98 and thereafter the appellant has made payment of Rs. 1,030/- on 16.7.1999. Correctness of the above fact is not disputed by the learned Counsel for the appellant even before us. On the basis of material on record it is apparent that the subsequent bills raised by the respondent after giving due adjustment, have not been paid by the appellant as a result of which arrears have accumulated to the extent of Rs. 1,559.24 upto September, 2000. In the presence of the above facts, the learned District Forum was fully justified in holding that the appellant had failed to show any defect or inaccuracy in the bills in question. Thus, viewed from all angles, the present appeal, filed by the appellant, is devoid of substance. The same merits dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed in limine.