UTTAR HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD vs HARCHARAN SINGH

-PETITIONER was the opposite party before the District Forum, where the respondent has filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner

VERY briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant enjoys the electricity connection provided by the respondent. There was an inspection carried out by the petitioner on the premises of the respondent/complainant on 6. 1. 2006, they found that the meter was tampered as also the load factor was higher than the sanctioned load, based on which an electricity bill of Rs. 29,250 was raised, which according to the complainant was not correct. When the matter was not getting sorted out between the parties, a complaint was filed before the District Forum, who after allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to refund Rs. 29,250 along with interest @ 9% p. a. from the date of deposit till realisation. Aggrieved by this order, an appeal was filed before the State Commission, which was also dismissed. Hence, this revision petition before us. At the threshold level, we see that there is a delay of 129 days in filing this revision petition, for which an application for condonation of delay has been filed. Paras 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the said application read as follows: "3. That purusant to the order dated 7. 11. 2007, the certified copy of the same was applied on the same day and the same was delivered on 8. 12. 2007. Thereafter, the file was sent to the Office of the Legal Remembrancer, Power Utilities, Haryana, Shakti Bhawan, Sector 6, Panchkula, Haryana for opinion when it was decided to challenge the impugned order by filing the Revision Poetition. Thereafter, the relevant file was sent to the concerned office. The sanction letter was issued to the concerned Advocate at New Delhi vide Memo No. 15/scu (776)07 dated 11. 1. 2008 engaging him as a Counsel to file the Revision Petition. Thereafter, the documents were handed over to the Counsel at New Delhi. The Revision Petition was drafted and the affidavit was affirmed on 30. 4. 2008. In the meanwhile the complete records of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula was obtained and the present Revision Petition was made ready. Documents were retyped and the petition is filed at the earliest instance.

That after receiving all the relevant documents from the petitioner-department, the Counsel for the petitioner took some time in preparing the said revision petition and for typing the relevant documents annexed to this Revision Petition.

That since the entire process involved the movement of the file concerned, through various Government offices and thereafter to obtain the records of the cases took time, the delay has occurred in filing the Revision Petition.

That the delay in filing the revision petition has been actuated by circumstances beyond the control of the petitioner and is not intentional or deliberate. In any event, the petitioner has established a good case on merits and the impugned order is unsustainable in law. It is, therefore, in the interest of justice that the delay of 85 days in filing the present Revision Petition be condoned.

That the delay so occasioned is purely unintentional and bona fide and has occurred beyond the control of the petitioner. Further, there is no reason as to why the impugned order would not have been challenged. The petitioner most humbly submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Hon''ble Court may be pleased to condone the delay in filing the Revision Petition. "

Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as also after perusing the material on record, we find that sufficient grounds have not been shown to condone the delay and there is no disputing the fact that date of receipt of order is 8. 12. 2007. After that we see that next date mentioned is 11. 1. 2008 and 30. 4. 2008. As per Regulation 14 of the Regulations under Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the time allowed for filing the revision petition is 90 days and for condoning delay sufficient grounds must be shown. Having gone through this material we are not satisfied that the sufficient grounds have been shown to condone the delay. The delay of 129 days is not a question of few days or a month or so, there is delay of over four months in filing the revision petition after taking into consideration the period of 90 days permissible for filing the revision petition.

ACCORDINGLY, application for condonation of delay is dismissed as not disclosing sufficient cause to condone the delay in question. Revision petition too is dismissed as barred by limitation. Revision Petition dismissed.