NEETA KHANNA vs Delhi Vidyut Board

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 28.2.2001, passed by District Forum (North West) Shalimar Bagh, Delhi in Complaint Case No. 2502/2000 - entitled Smt. Neeta Khanna v. THE Executive Engineer (D) CVL, Delhi Vidyut Board, Delhi.

THE facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated are that the appellant had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum averring that the appellant was having an electricity connection, bearing K. No. 413-138-179/DLP on the Ground Floor of 2585, Hudson Lines, Delhi-110009. Earlier the above said electricity connection, was in the name of one Shri Gian Chand which was subsequently transferred in the name of the appellant. THE grievance of the appellant, in the complaint, filed by her before the District Forum in nutshell was that though the appellant had paid all the bills yet her supply of electricity was disconnected for non-payment of bills by the respondent in February, 2000. Another grievance of the appellant was that the bill given to her for the consumption of electricity was highly exaggerated and was not according to the tariff. It was stated that on account of illegal disconnection of the supply of electricity the husband of the appellant met with an accident, suffered injury and was admitted in the hospital where one of his legs had to be amputated. In the complaint, filed by the appellant, it was prayed that the respondent be directed to restore the electricity supply and also to amend the bill in question as per the tariff. She also claimed compensation for the expenses incurred in the treatment of her husband Shri B.R. Khanna. The claim of the appellant in the District Forum was resisted by the respondent and in the written statement/written version, filed on behalf of the respondent it was stated that supply of the appellant was disconnected for the non-payment of the electricity bills which were prepared according to the tariff. It was stated that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.

The learned District Forum vide impugned order has held that the appellant had failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and, therefore, was not entitled to any compensation or relief. The learned District Forum has directed that the supply of electricity to the appellant be restored after she makes the payment of arrears bills which the respondent had been directed to prepare according to tariff.

FEELING aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 15 of the Act. We have heard the attorney 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. 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 above said period of 30 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 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 28.2.2001 and the appeal has been filed by the appellant in this Commission on 12.4.2001 which is decidedly beyond the prescribed period of limitation. No application seeking condonation of delay in filing the present appeal has been filed. In the presence of the above facts, the present appeal, filed by the appellant, is decidedly barred by limitation. The present appeal, filed by the appellant, besides being barred by limitation is also devoid of substance in merits because in the complaint, filed by her, before the District Forum her grievance in nutshell was about the exaggerated bill regarding the consumption of electricity and illegal disconnection of the supply of electricity despite the fact that the appellant had paid the bills upto February, 2000. The learned District Forum vide impugned order has held that the appellant could not explain as to how the bill was exaggerated and was not according to tariff. It has been further held by the learned District Forum that there was nothing on record to indicate that bills for supply of electricity were paid in time. Before us also the attorney of the appellant failed to satisfy us on the above points. In our opinion, the order being impugned in the present proceedings is a well reasoned order which takes due care of the interest of both the parties. The same in our opinion suffers from no infirmity so as to call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its appellate powers. The present appeal, filed by the appellant, 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.