DELHI VIDYUT BOARD vs Jharna Roy

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 13.11.1998, passed by District Forum No. I in Complaint Case No. 233094 - entitled Mrs. Jharna Roy v. Delhi Vidyut Board.

THE facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the respondent Smt. Jharna Roy had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act, before the District Forum averring that her late husband was allotted Quarter No. 3/4, Under Hill Road, Canal Colony, Civil Lines, Delhi-110054 and after the death of her husband the complainant joined the service on grounds of compassion. It was alleged that as some of the bills for the consumption of electricity in respect of the abovesaid quarter remained un-paid, the electricity supply was disconnected by the appellant. However, on a representation made by the respondent, the electricity supply was directed to be restored by the Director, EDP of the appellant subject to the condition that after checking the faulty meter and the billing records the correct amount to be paid was to be determined and minimum payment of Rs. 2,500/- was to be made by the respondent towards electricity charges and the balance amount was to be paid in monthly instalments, each of Rs. 100/- per month. It was also ordered by the Director, EDP that on payment of Rs. 2,500/- against the amount due and payable by the respondent to the appellant, the electricity supply of the respondent would be restored by the appellant. It was stated by the respondent in the complaint that in pursuance of the above orders of the Director, EDP, the respondent deposited a sum of Rs. 2,500/- with the appellant on 7.4.1994 as first instalment and also paid the monthly instalment of Rs. 100/- on 6.5.1994. THE grievance of the respondent in the complaint filed by her before the District Forum was that neither her meter was checked nor she was given the correct demand in pursuance of the orders of the Director, EDP and on 22.5.1994, she received a letter threatening her with disconnection of electricity if the payment of the balance amount was not made within seven days. In the complaint, filed by the respondent, it was prayed that the appellant be directed to raise bills on the basis of correct computation. THE respondent also claimed a compensation of Rs. 50,000/-. The claim of the respondent in the District Forum was resisted by the appellant. The stand taken by the appellant before the District Forum was that the bill in question was correct, based on actual reading, required to be paid by the respondent Rest of the allegations were denied by the appellant.

The learned District Forum, vide impugned order has allowed the complaint filed by the respondent, and has directed the appellant to charge from the respondent from July, 1992 onwards till meter is changed, either in accordance with the provision of Rule 22(d) of the Conditions of Supply of DESU or on the basis of minimum guarantee, whichever is more, till the replacement of the meter. It was also directed that the respondent would deposit the total amount due within 30 days @ Rs. 100/- per month as agreed by her earlier from May, 1994 upto date and would also pay regular bills and the balance of pending bills in instalment of Rs. 100/- per month. The respondent was also awarded a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as costs of litigation to be paid 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 abovesaid period of 30 days, if it is satisfied that there was ''sufficient cause'' for not filing the same within the abovesaid period. The words ''sufficient cause'', occurring in proviso to Section 15 of the Act, are of utmost significance. 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 13.11.1998 and the present appeal has been filed in this Commission on 16.2.1999. Therefore, the question requiring consideration at the very 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 alongwith the appeal has also filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. On a perusal of the contents of the abovesaid application, it is apparent that the copy of the order dated 13.11.1998 was received by the appellant on 1.12.1998. The reason for not filing the appeal in time has been stated in para 4 of the abovesaid application and the same reads as under : "That the case was entrusted to Mrs. Deepika, Advocate to contest the same on behalf of DVB. The said appeal could not be filed till today, i.e. 14.2.1999 for the reason that the office of the concerned Lawyer has been shifted from Delhi University to some other place and the file in this shifting could not be traced out. Now concerned Lawyer emerged out of this difficulty, hence the present appeal."

On a perusal of the contents of the above para of the application, it is apparent that the reason assigned for not filing the appeal in time is the shifting of the office of the concerned Lawyer from Delhi University to some other place. No details of the alleged shifting have been given as to when the office of the concerned Lawyer was shifted from Delhi University and to which place and on which date. Even the affidavit of the concerned Lawyer in support of the above contention of the appellant has not been filed. There is no supporting affidavit to the above said application. As already stated proof of ''sufficient cause'' is a condition precedent for condonation of delay in filing the appeal and as per settled law delay in filing the appeal cannot be condoned as a matter of generosity. It was obligatory on the part of the appellant to establish and satisfy as to how the matter was dealt with at all levels and each day''s delay had to be satisfactorily explained. In our above views, we stand fortified by a decision of the 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 view of 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 or want of bona fides on the part of the appellant. In our opinion, as a matter of fact, in the given facts, the appellant has miserably failed to show ''sufficient cause'' for condoning the delay in filing the present appeal and, therefore, the 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 in terms of the orders passed by Director, DESU the appellant was required to check the faulty meter and the billing records and thereafter was required to determine the correct amount to be paid. THE obligation of the respondent in terms of the abovesaid order of Director, DESU was to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,500/- immediately and to pay the balance amount in monthly instalments, each of Rs. 100/- per month. It is not in dispute that the respondent deposited the abovesaid amount of Rs. 2,500/- on 7.4.1994 and also paid the monthly instalment of Rs. 100/- on 6.5.1994. THE appellant instead of complying with the order, issued a letter dated 22.5.1994 threatening the respondent with disconnection of electricity unless the payment of balance amount was paid within seven days. THE above communication, directing payment of balance amount within seven days, decidedly was in contravention of the orders/directions issued by the Director, DESU on 5.3.1994.

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.