State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dhbvnl vs M/S Pankaj Cinema Theatre on 13 July, 2010
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA PANCHKULA First Appeal No.1850 of 2004 Date of Institution: 22.07.2004 Date of Decision: 13.07.2010 Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., through its Sub Divisional Officer, Operation Sub Division Taoru, District Gurgaon. .,.Appellant/Opp. Party Versus M/s Pankaj Cinema Theatre through its Proprietor Raj Kumar. ..Respondent-Complainant BEFORE: Honble Mr.Justice R.S.Madan, President. Dr.Rekha Sharma, Member. For the Parties: Mr.I.P.S.Sawhney, Law Officer for the appellant. None for the respondent. ORDER
JUSTICE R.S.MADAN PRESIDENT:
Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 25.08.2003 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon whereby while accepting the complaint of the respondent-complainant, following relief was granted:-
In view of the above settled legal proposition, the respondent was not justified to issue any demand notice imposing penalty, particularly when no record has been produce to show that the consumption was found much less than compared to the corresponding period and past or future. Thus, the complaint is allowed and the order of imposing penalty quashed.
Heard.
There is delay of 151 days in filing of the present appeal. It is well settled principle of law that the delay cannot be condoned on the ground of equity and generosity and the delay has to be condoned if sufficient cause is shown by the appellant. In the present case the appellant has taken the plea that he was under the impression that appeal can be filed within 90 days from the date of order. In our view this is not a sufficient cause to condone the delay because ignorance of law is no excuse for seeking condonation of delay.
A period of 30 days has been provided for filing an appeal against the order of the District Forum. The proviso contained therein permits the State Commission to entertain an appeal after the expiry of the period of 30 days if it is satisfied that there is sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the period prescribed. The expression sufficient cause has not been defined in the Act, 1986, rightly so, because it would vary from facts and circumstances of each case.
The Honble Supreme Court in case Bikram Dass Versus Financial Commissioner and others, AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1221 has held that:-
Section 5 of the Limitation Act is a hard task-master and judicial interpretation has encased it within a narrow compass. A large measure of case law has grown around S.5, its highlights being that one ought not easily to take away a right which has accrued to a party by lapse of time and that therefore a litigant who is not vigilant about has right must explain every days delay.
The Honble National Commission in case U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Vs. Brij Kishore Pandey & Another, 2009(3) C.P.C. 595 has held that:-
Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Section 24A-Limitation-Condonation of delay-Revision petition filed with delay-Reasons for delay is given that file was moving from table to table-Requirement of limitation is that such day to day delay should be explained-Reason given for delay is not sufficient-Petition dismissed as time barred.
Under the facts and circumstances of the present case we do not find it a fit case to condone the delay. Hence, the application for condonation of delay is rejected.
Even on merits, it is a case wherein the penalty of Rs.79663/- was imposed upon the respondent-complainant by the appellant-opposite party on the ground that during checking of his electricity connection the seals of the meter were found tampered with and it was a case of theft of energy. It is well settled principle of law that mere tampering of the seals of the meter cannot be a conclusive proof of theft of energy unless and until it is proved by any cogent and convincing evidence. In the instant case no evidence has been produced by the appellant-opposite party to prove that the complainant was abstracting energy dishonestly and as such no case for interference in the impugned order is made out.
Finding no merit in this appeal, it is dismissed both on the ground of limitation as well as on merits.
The statutory amount of Rs.25000/- deposited by the appellant at the time of filing of the appeal is ordered to be refunded to the appellant on expiry of period of limitation for filing revision/appeal, if any, filed in this case.
13th July, 2010 Justice R.S.Madan President Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member