DURGA ENGINEERING WORKS vs NORTH DELHI POWER LTD.

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 6.11.2002, passed by District Forum (North-West), Shalimar Bagh, Delhi in Complaint Case No. C-564/2002 entitled - Shri Durga Engineering Works & Ors. v. Delhi Vidyut Board/N.NW.D.D.C. Ltd.

THE facts, relevant for the disposal of the above mentioned appeal, lie in a narrow compass. THE appellants had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act against the respondent. In the complaint, filed by the appellants, while alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent, it was prayed that the respondent be directed to withdraw the FAE cases to refund the amount already paid by the appellants; to revise bills w.e.f. July, 1999 and to pay compensation for disconnection of electricity between the period from 25.1.2001 to 9.10.2001. The learned District Forum vide impugned order has dismissed the complaint filed by the appellants.

Feeling aggrieved, the appellants have preferred the present appeal under Section 15 of the Act.

WE have heard the Authorised Representative of the appellant at length on the question of admission of the present appeal and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. As already stated, the learned District Forum vide impugned order has dismissed the complaint which was filed by the appellants before the District Forum under Section 12 of the Act. The operative portion of the order, being impugned in the present proceedings reads as under : "Heard both the parties. Preliminary objection has been raised by N.D.P.L. that this complaint is not maintainable because it is time-barred and complainant has also filed a civil suit and obtained stay from the Civil Court. Moreover the complainant has also approached the Permanent Lok Adalat and an order has been passed by Permanent Lok Adalat in connection with the dispute. It is not denied by the complainant that civil suit has been filed for the same cause of action before the Senior Sub-Judge which is still pending, hence the complainant cannot be allowed to approach several Courts for the same dispute. Moreover, the dispute relates to the period of July, 1999 and the complaint was filed in July, 2002. Thus, it has been filed after lapse of more than two years, hence it is not maintainable. It should be noted that this Forum is not an Executing Court of the orders passed by Permanent Lok Adalat. This Forum is also not the Appellate Court for the orders passed by Permanent Lok Adalat. Hence this complaint is not maintainable as it is time-barred, the complaint is, therefore, dismissed."

On a perusal of the impugned order, it is apparent that the complaint filed by the appellants before the District Forum has been dismissed by the learned District Forum on the ground that the same was barred by limitation; that on the same cause of action, the appellants had already filed a civil suit which is still pending and that Redressal Agency, established under the Act, cannot be used for having orders passed by Permanent Lok Adalat of DVB, executed.

ON the basis of material on record it is apparent that the cause of action for the appellants had arisen in July, 1999 when the appellants had received the bills in question and, therefore, the complaint filed by them before the District Forum in July, 2002 was decidedly barred by limitation. Moreover, during the course of arguments on a specific query put by us, the Authorised Representative of the appellants, in all fairness, admitted that on the same cause of action, before filing the complaint in the District Forum, a civil suit had already been filed by the appellants which is still pending adjudication before the Senior Civil Judge, Delhi. In the presence of the above fact, no fault can be found with the finding of the learned District Forum to the effect that the complaint filed by the appellants before the District Forum was not maintainable. In view of the position explained above, in our opinion, the order being impugned in the present proceedings does not suffer from any infirmity so as to call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its appellate powers. The present appeal, filed by the appellants, is, therefore, devoid of substance. The same merits dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed in limine.