Executive Engineeer, Nagaon District Electrical Sub Division vs Shankar Lal Agarwalla

THIS Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), has been filed by the Assam State Electricity Board, the Opposite Party in the Complaint, against order dated 05.09.2014, passed by the Assam State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Guwahati (for short "the State Commission") in Appeal No. 37 of 2008. By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the said Appeal, preferred by the Petitioners herein, questioning the correctness and legality of order dated 31.03.2008 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Nagaon, Assam (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint No. 27 of 2004, preferred by the Respondent/Complainant. The District Forum had observed that the Petitioners had failed to adduce any documentary evidence in support of their higher demand in the electricity bills from the Complainant and that if wrong number of units, consumed by the Complainant, had been recorded by their meter reader, which were not noticed for a period of 29 months, there was deficiency in service on their part. Accordingly, allowing the Complaint, the District Forum had held that the impugned electricity bills for the period from 20.04.2002 to 06.09.2004 were not genuine, as the Complainant had already paid the bills for the said period, he was not required to pay any further amount as demanded by the Petitioners under the impugned bills.

BEING aggrieved, the Petitioners filed the afore -noted Appeal. The State Commission while agreeing with the reasoning and findings recorded by the District Forum dismissed the Appeal. Hence, the present Revision Petition.

IT is pointed out by the office that this Revision Petition is barred by limitation, as there is inordinate delay of 114 days in filing the same. An application praying for condonation of said delay has been filed along with the Revision Petition. In paragraph 3 to 7 of the said application, the explanation furnished is as under: "3. The Petitioner received the certified copy of the impugned judgment of the State Commission on 09.10.2014 from the office of the State Commission and it was after that the Petitioner could start processing the matter further. The change of the status of the erstwhile A.S.E.B. had further created the problem as the records of the bills and other documents were being handled by the erstwhile Engineers of the ASEB and the same were not available with the concerned officers of the Assam Power Distribution Company Limited (APDCL). As the Petitioner was required to file the entire documents and records the case alongwith the Revision Petition, the same was not available with the present Petitioner. The Respondent did not supply the relevant documents alongwith the Claim Petition. This requirement was communicated by the present Advocate to the Petitioner in the third week of November, 2014 about the said requirement after he had perused the file which was sent to him in the last week of October, 2014 after examining the prospect of filing of the Revision Petition in the office of the present Petitioner.

The present Petitioner inquired from their panel Advocate about the availability of all the documents in the last week of November, 2014 and after checking from his office, the said Advocate told the office who was sent to collect the same that those documents were not supplied by the Respondent and the same were not there in the case records.

The present Petitioner thereafter send intimation to the Nagaon office about the availability of the said bills in their office in the first week of December, 2014. After the formation of the present Company, in the process of re -organisation of the office at Nagaon, the concerned officer had informed in the 3rd week of December, 2014 that it would take some time to find out the records. Accordingly, the said records could be located in the first week of February, 2015 and thereafter it was sent to the main office at Guwahati.

Unfortunately, the AGM (Law) of the Petitioner met a road accident on 13.01.2015 fracturing his left knee which was plastered and the doctors had advised rest for two months. It was for this reason the said matter could not be settled and approved by the said officer before he joined the office as he was the person who was well acquainted with the facts of the case. The true copies of the Doctors prescription and the certificate of the Chief Medical Officer were annexed hereto and marked as Annexure -A (colly.).

The Advocate for the Petitioner went to Guwahati on 19.03.2015 in the evening and had discussion with the said Officer on 21.03.2015 at his office and settled the matter after discussion of the same. Accordingly, the said officer had sworn the Affidavits of the said case on 23.03.2015 (Monday). Thereafter the said Advocate left for Delhi. The remaining period was required by the Advocate in preparing the Revision Petition."

Xxx Xxx Xxx

XXX XXX XXXX

WE have heard learned counsel for the Petitioners on the question of delay.

IN our view, the explanation furnished is far from being satisfactory. The impugned order had been passed by the State Commission on 05.09.2014 and admittedly on 08.09.2014 the Petitioners had applied for certified copy of the same, which was ready for delivery on 10.09.2014, yet they took more than one month in collecting the same.

IT is common knowledge that even after bifurcation, merger, conversion and creation of a new entity from the subsisting one into Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd., the staff remains the same, except for the service conditions. Bearing in mind the same, the plea of the Petitioners that the records of the case were being handled by the erstwhile Engineers of the Assam State Electricity Board and the same were not available with the Assam Power Distribution company Ltd. does not merit acceptance. Admittedly, the Petitioners had sent the case file to their panel Advocate in October, 2014, yet the said Advocate took one month in informing the Petitioners that the records were incomplete. Thereafter, Petitioners'' office at Nagaon took two months in searching/furnishing the requisite documents to their office at Guwahati. The officer concerned, who was pursuing the matter on behalf of the Petitioners, has pleaded that in an accident, occurred on 13.01.2015, he had suffered a knee injury and had been advised rest for two months. However, we find that no medical papers starting from the said date have been placed on record. The only prescription which has been placed on record dates back to 22.01.2015, which shows that his cast was also removed on 13.02.2015. Even thereafter the said officer took one month in pursuing the matter with their Advocate and completing the formalities necessary for filing a Revision Petition before this Commission. The cumulative effect of the above exercise is that the present Revision Petition is barred by limitation, as there is a delay of 114 days, beyond the statutory period of 90 days, provided under Regulation 14 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. We are of the view that the Petitioners had been thoroughly negligent in prosecuting the case, for which the Complainant cannot be penalized by condoning the inordinate delay in filing the Petition.

BEARING in mind the afore -stated facts and the observations of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, 2011 14 SCC 578 to the effect that while deciding an application for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Act for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Foras are entertained, we are not inclined to condone an inordinate delay of 114 days in filing of the present Revision Petition. It is also pertinent to note that the Complaint, giving rise to the present Revision Petition, was filed as far back as in the year 2004 and order, quashing additional demand raised against the Complainant, was passed on 31.03.2008 but the element of uncertainty and threat of disconnection of electricity still looms large on the Complainant, subjecting him to unnecessary harassment and mental agony.

XXX XX XXX

CONSEQUENTLY , the Revision Petition is dismissed in limine on the ground of limitation.