Nek Ram 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 9.10.2001, passed by District Forum (North-West), Shalimar Bagh, Delhi in Complaint Case No. 3298/2001 entitled - Sh. Nek Ram v. THE Accounts Officer, Delhi Vidyut Board & Anr.

THE facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the appellant, Sh. Nek Ram, had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act, before the District Forum, averring that the appellant was the registered consumer in respect of electricity connection, bearing No. 1222082, installed at K-604, J.J. Colony, Wazirpur, Delhi. It was stated that the appellant had been receiving bills for consumption of electricity in respect of the above said electricity connection at the rate of Rs. 160/- for 2 months. It was further stated that the appellant on 12.8.1999 and 12.10.1999 received exorbitant bills for consumption of electricity. It was stated that on receipt of the above said exorbitant bills, the appellant made representation to the respondent Delhi Vidyut Board but there was no response from the end of the respondent. THE appellant also presented an application to the respondent Delhi Vidyut Board for the replacement of the meter and for revision of the bills on 8.12.1999 but no action was taken by the respondent Delhi Vidyut Board on the above said application too. It was stated that the respondent neither took any action to remove the meter nor to correct the bills and the supply of the appellant was abruptly disconnected on 19.1.2001 without any notice to him. THE appellant also served a legal notice and thereafter filed the complaint before the District Forum with the prayer that the electric supply, disconnected by the respondent Delhi Vidyut Board on 19.1.2001, be directed to be restored. THE appellant had also claimed a compensation of Rs. 200/- per day to be paid by the respondent-Delhi Vidyut Board. The claim of the appellant in the District Forum was resisted by respondent Delhi Vidyut Board and in the reply/written version filed on behalf of the respondent-Delhi Vidyut Board, it was stated that the appellant was not making any payment for consumption of electricity since July, 1999 and that the supply of the appellant had to be disconnected by the respondent Delhi Vidyut Board on 23.1.2001 due to non-payment of electricity bills. It was also stated that the respondent has raised the bills according to meter reading and that the meter in question was also changed in March, 1999. The stand taken by the respondent-Delhi Vidyut Board was that the total amount outstanding and payable by the appellant to the respondent was to the extent of Rs. 6,461/- and the electricity supply could be restored only after the payment of the outstanding amount. It was stated that the bills had been raised according to the tariff and 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 has not been able to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the respondent-Delhi Vidyut Board. On the basis of the above finding, the learned District Forum has dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant.

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. 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 the 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 were passed by the learned District Forum on 9.10.2001 and the present appeal has been filed by the appellant on 22.2.2002. Therefore, the question requiring consideration at the very threshold is as to whether the appellant has shown ''sufficient cause'' for not filing the appeal, in time, within the meaning of proviso to Section 15 of the Act. The appellant, along with the appeal has filed an application seeking condonation of delay, in filing the present appeal. The reason for not filing the present appeal in time has been stated in para 2 of the above said application and the same reads as under : "That the aforesaid order has been received by the applicant in the middle of October, 2001 and the applicant is a very poor person, having no source of income and due to his financial problems and some other unavoidable circumstances, he could not approach to his Counsel and even he is not fully aware about filing of this appeal and even he is not aware of the contents of the said order as he is an illiterate person and he does not know the A, B and C, of the English."

On a bare perusal of the contents of the above para, it is apparent that the copy of the order being impugned in the present proceedings as received by the appellant in the middle of October, 2001. The reason for not filing the appeal in time as stated in the application are, poverty, lack of resources and some other unavoidable circumstances. The appellant has not cared to explain in detail what were those unavoidable circumstances as a result of which the appellant could not file the appeal in time. The other cause stated in the application for not filing the appeal in time is ignorance and illiteracy on the part of the appellant. The delay in filing the appeal cannot be condoned as a matter of generosity. Proof of sufficient cause is a condition precedent for exercising discretion by the Appellate Authority. In our above views we stand fortified by a decision of the Hon''ble National Commission in case of Vice Chairman, Delhi Development Authority v. O.P. Gauba, reported as III (1995) CPJ 18 (NC)=1986-96 Consumer 2731 (NS)

IN view of the position explained above, in our opinion, whatever liberal interpretation might be put on the words ''sufficient cause'', it would be impossible for use to hold that there was no negligence on the part of the appellant. IN our opinion, as a matter of fact, in the given facts, the appellant has miserably failed to show ''sufficient cause'' for condoning the delay 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 because on the basis of material on record it is not in dispute that the appellant has not made any payment of electricity dues since July, 1999 and continued to consume electricity till 23.1.2001 when his electricity connection was disconnected on the ground of non-payment of electricity dues. As regards the bills stated to be exorbitant, the position is that the learned District Forum has rightly held that there is nothing on record to substantiate the above allegation of the appellant. THE order being impugned in the present proceedings is a well reasoned order which takes due care of the interest of both the parties because vide impugned order while dismissing the complaint filed by the appellant, the District Forum has also made an observation that the appellant is well advised to pay the amount of the revised bills if he wants restoration of the supply of electricity. In our opinion the order being impugned in the present proceedings 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. Appeal dismissed.