State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Executive Engineer, Hpseb & Ors. vs Sh. Balram Kumar Kaushal on 2 December, 2009
H
H.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION,
SHIMLA-9.
F.A. No. 109 of 2009 Decided on 2.12.2009.
1.
Executive Engineer,
H.P.S.E.B.,
Electrical Sub-Division-Haroli,
P.O. & Tehsil, Haroli,
District Una, H.P.
2.
S.D.O., H.P.S.E.B.,
Electrical Sub-Division-Haroli,
P.O. & Tehsil-Haroli, District Una, H.P.
....Appellants.
Versus
Sh.
Balram Kumar Kaushal son
of Sh. Satpal,
Proprietor M/s Kaushal
Cold Store,
Village Bhadsali, Tehsil & District Una, H.P. ..Respondent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Honble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.), President.
Honble Mr. Chander
Shekher Sharma, Member.
Whether approved for reporting ?
For
the Appellants. Mr. Shashi
Bhushan Singh Chandel,
Advocate.
For the Respondent.
Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate
vice Mr. Naresh Thakur, Advocate.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.) President.
1. Appellants are aggrieved from the order passed by District Forum, Una, in Consumer Complaint No. 64/2007, on 10.3.2009.
While allowing the complaint, following order has been passed :-
Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case and the law as discussed above, we are of the considered opinion that the sundry charges claimed by opposite party No.2 as per copy of bill copy annexure C-9 and notice dated 10.3.2005 copy annexure C-8 are not sustainable in the eyes of law and the opposite parties are not justified in claiming the said charges from the complainant. Accordinlgy, the complaint is allowed and it is held that the complainant is not liable to pay the sundry charges as per bill copy annexure C-9 and notice annexure C-8.
However, there are no orders as to cost.
2. According to the respondent sum of Rs. 3,86,099/-
being claimed as arrear was not payable by him. This demand was created by the appellants against him as arrear for the period from November, 2001 to November, 2003, November 2003 to June 2004 and July, 2004. According to the appellants amongst other things respondent should have approached the Disputes Settlement Committees constituted at various levels for settlement of disputes between its Consumers and the H.P. State Electricity Board vide Notification No. 15/2002, dated 19.10.2002.
3. At this stage learned counsel for the appellants submitted that these Disputes Settlement Committees have now been rechristened as Forums for Redressal of Grievances of Consumers.
4. While challenging the above referred order passed by District Forum below, Mr. Chandel, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that assuming everything to be correct for the sake of arguments without conceding, fact remains that the demand was created on 11.9.2004 against the respondent by his clients. Complaint was filed beyond limitation prescribed U/S 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Thus according to the learned counsel for the appellants on this ground alone, this appeal is bound to be succeed and consequently complaint merits dismissed, especially when no prayer for condonation of delay was made either in the complaint or by way of separate application. Above all, according to the learned counsel for the appellants, a civil suit was filed challenging the impugned demand by the respondent which was later on withdrawan un-conditionally. Thus on this ground also this appeal deserves to be allowed.
5. Faced with this situation learned counsel for the respondent submitted, that though he disputes all the pleas urged by Mr. Chandel, learned counsel for the appellants still he has instructions to withdraw the complaint out of which this appeal has arisen and his client shall approach first the Assessing Authority at Una, as the demand was provisional, and if thereafter need arises then the Forum for Redressal of Grievances of the consumers constituted by the H.P.State Electricity Board by challenging the order of the Assessing Authority. He further submitted that the said Forum may not throw out the case being belated, because his client was bonafide under mistaken legal advise was prosecuting the matter before the Foras under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
6. Keeping in view the statement made on behalf of the respodent, complaint No. 64/2007, is allowed to be withdrawn by the respondent, as a result of it, order dated 10.3.2009, becomes non-est and consequently this appeal has become infructuous, dismissed accordingly. At the same time it is clarified that the respondent will be at liberty to approach the Assessing Authority at Una first because the assessment is provisional, and if thereafter need arises, then the Forum for Redressal of Grievances of the Consumers constituted by the H.P.State Electricity Board for Redressal of Grievances of Consumers like the respondent. It is clarified that claim of the respondent will not be defeated being belated by either the Assessing Authority or by the Forum for Redressal of Grievances of the Consumers. Appeal is disposed of in these terms leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
7. All interim orders passed from time to time shall stand vacated forthwith.
8. Learned counsel for the parties have undertaken to collect copy of this order free of cost from the Court Secretary as per Rules.
(Justice Arun Kumar Goel)Retd.
President (Chander Shekher Sharma) Member Suneera 2.12.2009