DELHI VIDYUT BOARD vs R.K.BHATT

THE present appeal bearing No. 489/97, filed by the appellant under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') arises out of the order of District Forum No. 4, passed in Complaint Case No. 179/96 entitled Sh. Rajinder Kumar Bhatt v. THE General Manager, Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking & Anr.

THE brief facts of this appeal are that the respondent is the owner and in occupation of a MIG Flat No. 536, Pocket "B", East Loni Road, Delhi since 19th March, 1993. THE respondent applied for an electricity connection in the above said premises on 11th June, 1993 and also deposited Rs. 720/- as security charges for the electric meter as well as completed the other necessary formalities required for the sanction of an electricity connection. THE same was sanctioned by the appellant on 14th June, 1993, but when the staff of the appellant carried out inspection at the site it was noticed that the flat in question had been booked earlier in a case of theft of energy on 1.12.1992 and as such, the meter could not be installed at the premises of the respondent. THE respondent even obtained a letter from the Executive Engineer (DDA) stating that the respondent had taken the possession of the flat in question only on 19th March, 1993 and that before the said date, the possession of the said flat was with the DDA. A copy of the said letter was handed over by the respondent to the concerned Asstt. Engineer, Nand Nagri of the appellant in order to satisfy the appellant that the respondent was not involved in the alleged theft of electricity. THE respondent also issued a legal notice to the appellant but to no avail. Eventually, the respondent filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act on 1st August, 1984. It was only on 6th August, 1994 that the appellant installed the meter at the premises of the respondent. THE respondent has disputed the said date mentioned by the appellant and has stated in his reply to the appeal that the meter was actually installed at his premises on 26th August,1994. In its reply/written version filed before the District Forum, the stand of the appellant was that the delay in installing the meter at the flat of the respondent was due to the fact that there was a case of theft of energy pending regarding the said flat and it was only after the respondent could satisfy the appellant that he was not in occupation of the said premises, at the time of the theft of electricity, only then the meter could be installed at the premises in question. It was further stated that the respondent needed to complete some commercial formalities, before the appellant could release the electric connection and instal a meter at the premises of the respondent and as such the delay did not tantamount to "deficiency in service" on their part.

The learned District Forum, however, dismissed the pleas of the appellant and held that there had been inordinate delay of 13 months in installing the electric meter at the premises of the respondent and as such there was "deficiency in service" on the part of the appellant, for which, the appellant was directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- as cost of litigation, to the respondent. Aggrieved by the above said order, the appellant has filed the present appeal before us. The present appeal is accompanied by an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Notice of this appeal was duly served on the respondent, who has put in appearance and also filed a reply to the appeal, as well as, the application for condonation of delay.

WE have heard the arguments advanced on behalf of both the parties, as well as, have gone through the documents/material on record. The respondent has vehemently opposed the application of the appellant for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal, and, therefore, we will first deal with the same. The District Forum had passed the impugned order on 30th May, 1997, whereas in their application for condonation of delay the appellant has mentioned the date of the order as 3rd June, 1997. The appeal was actually filed on 15.10.1997 but the application of the appellant nowhere mentions the date on which the copy of the impugned order was received by the respondent. Further, the reasons recorded for the delay in the application are that the Counsel for the appellant who was assigned the file for preparing and filing the present appeal was away on vacation and also that the Court was closed on account of summer vacations. The above grounds on the face of it appear to be absolutely frivolous and concocted as the Consumer Fora and the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi are never closed for vacation at any time during the year specifically in summers. However, it was, appellant''s duty to ensure that the appeal was filed in time, through a Counsel, who was available, during the relevant period. Even otherwise, we are not expected to condone the acts of sheer callousness and carelessness, in conducting its litigation on the part of the appellant. Therefore, in view of the fact that no cogent reason have been assigned for the delay in filing the present appeal, we dismiss the application of the appellant for condonation of the delay in filing the present appeal.

COMING to the merits of the case, the present appeal, is not maintainable even on merits. The reasons assigned by the appellant for delay in fixing the electric meter at the premises of the appellant are not very convincing. Despite the fact that the respondent had completed the necessary formalities and the appellant had sanctioned electric connection in his favour on 14th June, 1993 itself, the meter was actually installed on 26th August 1994 as stated by the respondent. The plea of the appellant that the flat in question was booked for theft of energy and that as per policy a meter could not be fixed till the case of theft of energy was finally disposed of, is not tenable on the ground that the respondent had produced the necessary letter from the Executive Engineer, DDA stating that the possession of the flat in question was with DDA at the relevant time of the theft and that the respondent had taken over the possession of the flat in question only on 19th March, 1993. Further, the fact that the electric connection was sanctioned by the appellant on 14th March, 1993 itself shows that the respondent had complied with all the necessary formalities in that regard. The learned District Forum was, therefore, justified in holding that there was undue delay in installing the electric meter at the flat of the respondent which constituted "deficiency in service" on the part of the appellant. The amount of compensation as well as the cost of litigation granted is also justified in view of the fact that despite having the electric connection sanctioned in his favour, the respondent had to wait for 13 long months for having the meter installed and getting the same energised. In view of the above discussion, it is clear that there is no infirmity in the impugned order and as such the same is upheld and in consequence thereof, the present appeal of the appellant being preferred beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under the Act, as well as on merits, is not maintainable and the same is dismissed accordingly. There is no order, however, as to cost. Appeal dismissed.