Judgment:
Lokeshwar Prasad, President:
1. The present appeal, filed by the appellant under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as âthe Actâ), is directed against order dated 22.1.2002, passed by District Forum No. III, Janakpuri, New Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 1566/2000 - entitled Shri Harjinder Singh Arora v. Delhi Vidyut Board.
2. The facts relevant, for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the respondent, Sh. Harjinder Singh had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum averring that the complainant was a consumer in respect of electricity connection bearing K. No. JP-802-1358084 and was receiving normal bills in respect of consumption of electricity which were being paid by him in time. It was stated that in May, 2000, the respondent received an excessive bill for Rs. 20,892.69 for the commercial use of the electricity without any prior notice. It was stated that on inquiry, the respondent was told that misuse charges in respect of the above said electricity connection had been levied w.e.f. 1997. It was stated that on coming to know the above fact, he made a representation and also deposited a fee of Rs. 50/- on 10.7.2000 for the inspection of the premises. It was stated that after the premises was inspected and the officials of the respondent were satisfied that there was no misuse, the misuse charges were waived w.e.f. 10.7.2000. In the complaint filed by the respondent it was prayed that the appellant be directed to withdraw the demand raised in May, 2000 and charge at the normal rates as per consumption.
3. The claim of the respondent in the District Forum was resisted by the appellant and in the reply/written version filed on behalf of the appellant, it was stated that misuse of electricity was detected by the functionaries of the appellant on 15.5.1998 and the show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 11.8.1998 for levy of misuse charges w.e.f. 15.11.1997. It was stated that no reply was given by the respondent to the above said show cause notice and thereafter misuse charges were levied w.e.f. 15.11.1997 to May, 2000 which were reflected in the bill issued in May, 2000. It was stated that on a representation made by the respondent, the misuse charges were withdrawn from 20.7.2000.
4. The learned District Forum vide impugned order has held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellant and on the basis of the above finding has passed the impugned order.
5. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 15 of the Act.
6. 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. Thus, in terms of the above provision, normally an appeal under Section 15 has to be filed within 30 days from the date of the order and in case the same is filed after the expiry of the above period, in that event, the appellant has to satisfy that there was sufficient cause for not filing the same within the above said period. Rule 8(4) of the Delhi Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 framed under Sub-section (2) of Section 30 of the Act provides that when an appeal is presented after the expiry of the period of limitation, as specified in the Act, the memorandum shall be accompanied by an application supported by an affidavit, setting forth the facts on which the appellant relies to satisfy the Commission that he has sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation.
7. The order being impugned in the present proceedings was passed by District Forum on 22.1.2002. The copy of the impugned order was received by the representative of the respondent on 1.4.2002 because there is an endorsement to the above effect on the last page of the impugned order. Since the copy of the impugned order was received by the representative of the respondent on 1.4.2002, the above mentioned appeal should have been filed within 30 days from 1.4.2002. The same has not been filed within the prescribed period of limitation and has been filed much after the prescribed period of limitation on 29.6.2002. No application under Sub-rule (4) of Rule 8 of the Delhi Consumer Protection Rules, 1987, showing âsufficient cause for not preferring the appeal well within the period of limitation has been filed. In view of the position explained above the present appeal, filed by the appellant, is barred by limitation and deserves to be rejected on the above ground alone.
8. The present appeal, filed by the appellant, besides being barred by limitation, is also devoid of substance on merits because in the complaint filed by the respondent, the main grievance of the respondent was that misuse charges had been levied by the appellant on the respondent without any prior notice. On the basis of material on record, it is apparent that a notice was issued to the respondent on 11.8.1998. The demand in question had been raised by the appellant nearly about 2 years afterwards in May, 2000. Thus, there is no proximity in the notice issued by the appellant and the action taken by the appellant in pursuance of that notice. The action taken by the appellant on the basis of a stale notice, which as a matter of fact cannot be treated as a proper notice in the eyes of law, is not sustainable in law. In our opinion, the order being impugned in the present proceedings, is a well-reasoned order. The same 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 merit. The same deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs.
Appeal dismissed.