National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Smt. Munesh Devi vs Up Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. on 18 February, 2013
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI ORIGINAL PETITION NO. 253 OF 2002 Smt. Munesh Devi W/o Late Shri Jagbir Singh R/o. A/103, Sunita Vihar 100 ft. Road, Loni Tehsil & District Ghaziabad Uttar Pradesh Presently residing at : C/o B.P.Singh, C-31 Gali No.1, Khajoori Khas Delhi 110 094 .... Complainant Vs. 1. The U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Shakti Bhavan, 14, Ashoka Marg Lucknow 2. The Executive Engineer Electricity Distribution Division - 11 SB-VI, Shastri Nagar, Ghaziabad 3. The Sub-Divisional Officer Electricity Distribution Division Pargana Loni, District Ghaziabad .. Opposite Parties BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER For the Complainant : Ms. Shaveta Choudhary, Advocate With Mr. Jatin Rajput, Advocate For all the Opp. Parties : Mr. Daleep Kr. Dhayani, Advocate With Mr. Pradeep Misra & Mr. Manoj Kumar Sharma, Advocates Pronounced on_18.02.2013 ORDER
JUSTICE J.M. MALIK
1. If a complaint is filed after the period of limitation and if the complainant has no sufficient cause for condonation of delay, the law under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, strikes a snap in allowing the complaint, whatsoever worth/strong the case may be.
2. In this complaint case filed before this Commission on 11.07.2002, by Smt. Munesh Devi, Widow of late Shri Jagbir Singh, R/o. A/103, Sunita Vihar, 100 ft. Road, Loni, Tehsil & District Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, (Presently residing at C/o B.P.Singh, C-31, Gali No.1, Khajoori Khas, Delhi 110 094) has claimed a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- because the death of her husband was caused due to the transformer installed and maintained by the Opposite Parties, while he was returning home from duty.
The transformer of the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd., (UPPCL, in short), arrayed as OP No.1, suddenly burst and the hot oil of the transformer fell upon her husband, late Sh. Jagbir Singh, on 05.02.2000 at about 6.00PM. He received 85% burn injuries. He was taken to Safdarjung Hospital where he succumbed to burn injuries on 08.02.2000.
3. Sh Jagbir Singh who was residing at the above mentioned address was an employee of the Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., (MTNL in short) at Delhi. The information regarding the death of the deceased was given to the Police. The complainant claimed Rs.25.00 lakhs as compensation under different Heads before the OPs. The said claim has not been decided so far.
The transformer in question was very old and rusty. The OPs were entrusted with the job of maintenance, removal and replacement of equipments which are needed for the generation and supply of electricity. The local inhabitants informed the OPs about the pathetic condition of the transformer but the OPs did not pay any heed to it. The deceased at the time of the death was drawing a monthly salary in the sum of Rs.6,275/-. He was born on 01.07.1961 and he passed away when his age was 38 years 7 months. The complainant, at the time of her husbands death, was about 33 years and she has to look after her three minor children.
4. The complainant approached the civil court, Honble High Court and Honble Supreme Court, respectively on the ground that she was unable to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as court fee and wanted exemption from paying the court fee, but her request was not allowed. It is prayed that complainant be awarded a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- on account of the deficiency, negligence and dereliction of duty on the part of the OPs.
5. The OPs contested the case and set up the following defences. The complainant is not a consumer and she is not entitled to Rs.25,00,000/-. The details given by her are not clear. All the allegations have been denied including that no application for compensation was received by the replying OPs. It is, admitted that UPPCL, OP1 is a Government Company which has been entrusted with the work of transformation and distribution of electricity in Uttar Pradesh. It is also admitted that a transformer of the OPs was burnt due to sudden fall. No copy of FIR was enclosed with the complaint. The OPs were maintaining the transformer from time to time and its capacity and load and oil used to be checked from time to time. It is denied that the transformer burst out due to negligence of the OPs. There is no provision under which compensation for sudden accident due to the fact which was beyond the control of the replying OPs could be granted. The incident did not occur in the premises of the complainant but had occurred on the road, and by chance, the complainants husband was passing by it, at that time. No cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainant and she is not entitled to any compensation.
6. We have heard the counsel for the parties and gone through the written synopses. The record reveals that complainant had claimed a sum of Rs.20.00 lakh only. The complainant was supposed to pay court fee in the sum of Rs.1,50,607.50ps but the complainant paid a court fee of Rs.200/- only. Her plea was rejected and she was directed to pay the deficit court fee in the court, within fourteen days, w.e.f. 07.08.2000, when the Civil Judge passed the above said order. Aggrieved by that order, the complainant approached the Honble High Court. The Honble High Court vide its judgment dated 01.11.2001 passed the following orders:-
Heard Shri Deepak Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioner. It may be an unfortunate case where the husband of the petitioner died in an accident as alleged in the writ petition. Compensation or any monetary relief can come to the petitioner only in accordance with the provision of law. No such provision has been cited. Therefore, the petitioner can always file a suit for a compensation if exigencies so desire. The writ petition consequently disposed of with the aforesaid observations.
7. Thereafter, the complainant filed Special Leave Petition before the Honble Supreme Court of India. The Honble Supreme Court of India dismissed the petition on 15.03.2002. Thereafter, the instant complaint case was filed before this Commission on 11.07.2002.
8. Although this complaint was filed on 11.07.2002, yet, no application for condonation of delay was moved. On 07.01.2013, final arguments were heard and the case was reserved for orders. On 15.01.2013, we passed the following orders:-
1. We have already heard the learned counsel for the parties. It appears that the complainant has not moved any application for condonation of delay.
She has also not submitted the proof that the complainant had claimed Rs.25 lakh from the opposite party. Only copy of the application has been produced on record. There is no proof that the same was received by the opposite party.
2. Under the circumstances, we give opportunity to the complainant to move the application for condonation of delay.
Notice be issued to both the parties for the date fixed.
3. List on 31.1.2013 for final hearing.
9. Pursuant to the above said directions, the application for condonation of delay was moved by the complainant, for the first time, on 24.01.2013. In the said application, the following averments were made. This is admitted that the cause of action in the present case arose on 05.02.2000. The claim petition was filed before the OP on 28.07.2000. The said claim petition was submitted to the concerned officer, by hand, and the same was received by them. It is contended that the cause of action is still continuing because no compensation has been paid by the OP to the Complainant. They have not cared to respond to the said application. It is prayed that under these circumstances, the delay in filing this complaint, of about 156 days, be condoned. The said application was hotly contested by the OP.
10. We are of the considered view that the complainant has failed to prove sufficient ground for condonation of delay. The complainant has produced the copy of the claim petition filed before the OP, which the OP has categorically denied receiving the original copy of the claim petition. There is no proof of service. Signature of a person appears with the remarks received. No stamp appears on it, in token of the receipt of the original claim petition. The signatures are illegible. The counsel for the complainant could not explain to whom it had been handed over.
Such like evidence can be created at any time. The complainant has failed to produce solid and unflappable evidence in support of her case. It is clear that the complaint is barred by time.
11. The Honble Apex Court in the celebrated authority, reported in State Bank of India Vs. B.S. Agricultural Industries (I), II (2009) CPJ 29 (SC) was pleased to hold, as under :-
7. Section 24 A of the Act, 1986 prescribes limitation period for admission of a complaint by the consumer fora thus:
24A.
Limitation period (1) The District forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period : Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.
8. It would be seen from the aforesaid provision that it is peremptory in nature and requires consumer forum to see before it admits the complaint that it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. The consumer forum, however, for the reasons to be recorded in writing may condone the delay in filing the complaint if sufficient cause is shown. The expression, shall not admit a complaint occurring in Section 24A is sort of a legislative command to the consumer forum to examine on its own whether the complaint has been filed within limitation period prescribed thereunder. As a matter of law, the consumer forum must deal with the complaint on merits only if the complaint has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action and if beyond the said period, the sufficient cause has been shown and delay condoned for the reasons recorded in writing. In other words, it is the duty of the consumer forum to take notice of Section 24A and give effect to it. If the complaint is barred by time and yet, the Consumer Forum decides the complaint on merits, the Forum would be committing an illegality and, therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside.
12. Again, the Honble Supreme Court in M/s. Advance Scientific Equipment Ltd. & Anr. vs. West Bengal Pharma & Photochemical Development Corporation Ltd., (Civil Appeal Nos.17068-17069, decided on 09.07.2010) has observed, inter alia, as under :-
We are further of the view that the petitioners venture of filing petition under Article 227 of the Constitution was clearly an abuse of the process of the court and the High Court ought not to have entertained the petition even for a single day because an effective alternative remedy was available to the petitioner under section 23 of the Act and the orders passed by the State Commission did not suffer from lack of jurisdiction.
13. This authority was further followed by this Commission in M/s.Agari Enterprises Vs. Sesappa Saphaliga & Ors. (RP 3851 of 2012, decided on 10.12.2012). See also Thai Airways International Public Company Ltd. Vs. Gargi Basak, 2008 (1) CPJ 134 (NC).
14. The ratio of the above said authorities is applicable to this case as well. It may be also mentioned here that neither the Honble High Court nor the Honble Supreme Court mentioned about the limitation of this case.
15. It was argued, in the instant case that the complainant is an illiterate person and she was not aware of the legal position. It is well settled that ignorance of law is no excuse. It may be mentioned here that the complainant has got the service of Class IV employee, on compassionate ground. Her husband was working as UDC. Consequently, we dismiss the complaint as barred by time.
...J (J.M. MALIK) PRESIDING MEMBER ...
(VINAY KUMAR) MEMBER