DELHI VIDYUT BOARD vs Krishan Lal

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 22.10.1999, passed by District Forum No. 1 in Complaint Case No. 1531/98 - entitled Shri Krishan Lal v. Delhi Vidyut Board.

THE facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the respondent, who is having an electricity connection, in his name, had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum, averring that in respect of his electricity connection, in May, 1991, he had received an inflated bill of Rs. 52,239.25 and when he approached the office of the appellant, he was told either to pay the amount of the bill or to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- by way of illegal gratification. It was alleged that as the respondent was not in a position to pay either the amount of the bill or the amount of illegal gratification, demanded from him, his electricity connection, bearing K. No. 1351575, was disconnected in September, 1995 and the meter was removed in January, 1996. It was stated, in the complaint, by the respondent Shri Krishan Lal that even after the disconnection of electricity and removal of the meter, the respondent, in November, 1996, in respect of the same connection, received another bill for Rs. 1,11,006/ - It was stated that the respondent approached ''Bijlee Adalat'' and was asked to pay only Rs. 303.66 and was asked to apply for new connection, which, the respondent complied with on 20.4.1998 and was given a new connection in December, 1998. THE grievance of the respondent, in the complaint, filed by him, before the District Forum, was that due to high handedness of the employees of the appellant, the respondent had to live without electricity for 3 years for no fault on his part. THE respondent filed the complaint with the prayer that he be awarded compensation for the harassment caused to him. The claim of the respondent, in the District Forum, was resisted by the appellant. The appellant, in the written statement/written version, while denying the allegations, took the stand that the respondent applied for restoration of dormant supply on 26.8.1998 and deposited the necessary charges for the restoration of electricity on 17.11.1998 and the connection was restored on 22.12.1998. It was stated that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant. The learned District Forum, vide impugned order, has held the appellant guilty of deficiency in service and on the above ground, has directed the appellant, to pay to the respondent, a sum of Re. 6,000/- as compensation; refund the security amount realised afresh from the respondent; and withdraw all bills issued after disconnection of electricity. The appellant has also been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- to the respondent as cost of litigation. It has also been directed that the amount of Rs. 7,000/- (Rs. 6,000/ - compensation + Rs. 1,000/- costs) be recovered/ realised from the salary of the concerned defaulting officers/officials.

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. The order, being impugned in the present proceedings, was passed by the learned District Forum on 22.10.1999. In terms of the provisions contained in Section 15 of the Act, the present appeal should have been filed within a period of thirty days from the date of the order. However, proviso to the above section provides that the State Commission may entertain an appeal even after the expiry of the above said period of thirty 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. As per settled law, culled out from various judicial decisions, the above expression ''sufficient cause'', though deserves to receive a liberal construction, yet, a just and equitable balance has to be maintained between the right secured by the respondent as a result of the 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 thirty days. The same has been filed on 18.2.2000. Along with the appeal, the appellant has also filed an application, seeking condonation of delay, in filing the appeal. In the above said application, seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, it is stated that the certified true copy of the impugned order was received on 29.10.1999 i.e. the following day of the passing of the impugned order. It is stated in the application that the file was sent to the concerned department for sending the grounds of appeal. However, it is nowhere stated that after receipt of certified copy of the Order on 29.10.1999, on which date the file was sent to the concerned department/zone. In the abovesaid application, there is practically no explanation for the delay caused between 29.10.1999 to 7.1.2000 except a bald statement that the file was sent to the concerned department without giving any details. On a perusal of the abovesaid application, it is further apparent that the file was again sent to the department on 15.1.2000 for annexing the decision of the ''Bijlee Adalat'', wherefrom the same was received on 30.1.2000. Strangely enough, there is no supporting affidavit to the abovesaid application and in the absence of the same, the contentions advanced and the pleas taken in the application, virtually are of no significance. As per settled law, proof of ''sufficient cause'' is a condition precedent for the exercise of discretion and the delay in filing the appeal, cannot be condoned as a matter of generosity. It is the duty of the appellant to establish as to how the matter was dealt with at all levels and each day''s delay has to be satisfactorily explained. In our above views, we stand fortified by decision of the National Commission in case O.P. Gauba v. DDA, reported as III (1993) CPJ 1229=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 or want of bona fide on the part of the appellant. IN our opinion, 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. Admittedly, the respondent is a consumer, who was having an electricity connection bearing K. No. 1351575. It is also not in dispute that in May, 1991, the respondent received an inflated bill of Rs. 52,239.35 in respect of the abovesaid connection and thereafter in November, 1996 received another bill for Rs. 1,11,006/-. The electricity connection of the respondent was disconnected and the meter was removed in January, 1996. When the respondent took the matter to the ''Bijlee Adalat'', he was asked to pay only Rs. 303.66 which clearly establishes the fact that the earlier bills/ demands, raised by the appellant, were highly inflated and on the basis of those unjust bills/demands, the electricity connection of the consumer was disconnected and the consumer had to remain without electricity for a period of about 3 years. In the presence of the above facts the correctness of which cannot be disputed even by the appellant, the impugned order, even on merits, suffers from no infirmity so as to call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its appellate powers. 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. It is directed that the order of the District Forum, be complied with within 2 weeks from the date of the receipt of this order.

THE present appeal, filed by the appellant, stands disposed of in above terms. Appeal dismissed in limine.