Back
RAJASTHAN STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JAIPUR
Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.K.M. Lodha, President;
Mr. Damodar Thanvi, Member; Mrs. Saria Khan, Member
RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD––Appellant
versus
SHRI TRILOK CHAND––Respondent
Appeal No. 104/89—Decided on 12.1.1990
A stale claim that had become time-barred under the Law of Limitation long before the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 came into force cannot be entertained by the State Commission.
Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 - SECTION 14(1)(D) - LIMITATION - COMPENSATION - AWARD - PRINCIPLES - CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION - JURISDICTION - STALE CLAIMS - CONSUMER UNITY SOCIETY, CALCUTTA V. CHAIRMAN AND THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, BANK OF BARODA - RELIED ON - GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN-EASTERN RAILWAYS AND OTHERS V. ANAND PRAKASH SINHA AND OTHERS - REFERRED TO - COMMERCIAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE TELECOM., PATNA V. BIHAR STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION - REFERRED TO - BHARAT TRACTOR, MUZAFFARPUR V. RAMCHANDRA PANDEY - REFERRED TO.
Fact of the Case:
Complainant alleged that the opposite-party disconnected the electric supply on 13.2.81 without notice and failed to shift the meter despite the deposit of Rs. 35/-. The opposite-party claimed that the disconnection was made on 9.7.81 due to non-payment of dues and that the complainant did not allow the shifting of the meter on 13.2.81. The District Forum found that the disconnection was made on 13.2.81 and awarded compensation of Rs. 8,000/- to the complainant.
Finding of the Court:
The National Commission held that the complaint was highly belated as the disconnection occurred on 13.2.81 and the claim for compensation had become time-barred under the Law of Limitation long before the Act came into force. It also found that the complainant failed to establish negligence on the part of the opposite-party and that there was hardly any material on record to support the claim for compensation.
Issues: 1. Whether the complaint was barred by limitation? 2. Whether the complainant had established negligence on the part of the opposite-party? 3. Whether the award of compensation was justified?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A stale claim that had become time-barred under the Law of Limitation long before the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 came into force cannot be entertained by the State Commission. 2. The complainant must establish negligence on the part of the opposite-party and that as a consequence thereof, loss or injury was suffered by him in order to be entitled to compensation under Section 14(1)(d) of the Act. 3. The award of compensation must have a rational relation to the nature and extent of the injury, inconvenience, or physical and mental sufferings caused to the complainant by the action or omission of the opposite-party.
Final Decision: The National Commission set aside the District Forum's order awarding compensation of Rs. 8,000/- to the complainant and modified the order accordingly.
Mr. Justice S.K.M. Lodha, President—This appeal under Sec. 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (“the Act” herein) has been filed by the opposite-party against the order dated 24.10.89, passed by the District Forum, Bikaner in Complaint Case No. 106/89. The District Forum by the impugned order, has directed that the opposite-party-appellant should pay Rs. 8,000/- as compensation within a period of two months and further to restore the electric connection within four days to the complainant to Electric Account No. 1-2-112. A further direction was given that the meter of the complainant may be shifted in accordance with the application. It may be stated that the complainant filed the complaint under Sec. 12 of the Act. It is dated 7.7.89. It was prayed by him that the opposite-party may be ordered to shift the meter and restore the electric supply and further that on account of disconnection, the complainant has been put to loss, so compensations may be ordered. Other expenses and costs were also claimed. In the application for stay of the operation of the order, which was submitted on 7.12.89 the opposite-party-appellant has stated that in compliance of the order of the District Forum, electric connection has been restored. The complainant-respondent did not dispute this. In these circumstances, so far as the direction of restoration of electric supply is concerned, it has been complied with and, thus, the complainant-respondent had already got the relief of restoration of electric supply. In this appeal, the dispute is only with respect to the award of compensation amounting to Rs. 8,000/-. We shall notice the facts material for determining this dispute.
2. The complainant has alleged that he submitted an application on 26.12.80 to the Assistant Engineer, D-3, Electricity Board, Bikaner, stating that the meter of the electric connection Account No. 1-2-112 may be shifted to his building. An estimate was prepared and the complainant was informed on 12.2.81 that a sum of Rs. 35/- may be deposited for the shifting of the meter. In compliance of that, the complainant deposited Rs. 35/- on 13.2.81 vide receipt No. 40. Thereupon, the Assistant Engineer gave order to the Junior Engineer to shift the meter and give connection. On 13.2.81, the Junior Engineer came to the spot in the evening and removed the wires between the main line and also the meter. The duty hours were over and as such he left the place saying that the meter would be shifted the next day. According to the complainant, thereafter nobody on behalf of the opposite-party came for shifting the meter upto the date of filing of the complaint and the electric wires were not connected. On account of this, the complainant was deprived of the use of electricity. The complainant is said to have contacted the authorities and wrote letters in this connection. Ultimately, the complainant received a letter dated 29.10.86 from the opposite-party, in which it is written that the meter could not be shifted on the excuse of the complainant that the key is not with him. In that letter, it was also written that the complainant has not deposited the electricity dues from March, 1981 to July, 1981 and so on 9.7.81 the supply was disconnected as the amount of Rs. 126/- was not deposited. It was also stated that from April, 1981, as the domestic electricity was consumed in the shop, the commercial charges were levied. The complainant replied to that letter on 30.10.86 and, thereafter, nothing was done. The complainant filed the complaint as aforesaid for the above-mentioned reliefs.
3. Notice was issued to the opposite-party. It was admitted that the amount for shifting the meter was deposited, as alleged by the complainant. It was, however, denied that on 13.2.81, the meter and wires were removed and electric supply was discontinued, as alleged by the complainant. The case of the opposite-party as set out in the version of the case is that the complainant sent back the Junior Engi
