Back
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HYDERABAD
Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Parvatha Rao, President
& Dr. (Mrs.) Mamata Lakshmanna, Member
PULIPATI RAJA RAO—Appellant
versus
DIVISIONAL ELECTRICITY ENGINEER, A.P.S.E.B. & ORS.—Respondents
F.A. I.A. No. 972/98, F.A. SR. No. 5 of 1998 and R.P. No. 190 of 1998—Decided on 23.9.1998
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. C. Sai Gangadhar, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Admission Stage.
A complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 must be filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.
Headnote:
LIMITATION - CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 - SECTION 24-A - DELAY IN FILING COMPLAINT - DISMISSAL OF APPEAL - Held, the appeal is barred by time. The complaint was filed after a delay of 6 and half years from the date of disconnection of electricity connection. Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which was introduced with effect from 18.6.1993, provides that a complaint shall be filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. The general principles laid down in the Limitation Act are being applied by the FORA so that stale claims could not be filed before them.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum on 6.4.1993, alleging that his three electricity connections were disconnected on 19.11.1986 and 5.1.1987 for non-payment of consumption charges from August, 1986 to December, 1986. The District Forum dismissed the complaint as barred by time. The complainant filed an appeal before the State Commission, which was also dismissed as barred by time.
Finding of the Court:
The State Commission held that the complaint was clearly barred by limitation and that no relief could be granted to the complainant in respect of the disconnection forming the basis of his complaint.
Issues: Whether the complaint was filed within the limitation period prescribed under Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Ratio Decidendi: The National Commission held that the complaint was hopelessly barred by time, Triveni Industries v. Karnataka Electricity Board, III (1992) CPJ 56 (NC)=1986-96 CONSUMER 2035 (NS) directly applies to the facts of the present case. The complaint in that case was that electricity connection to the complainant’s factory was illegally disconnected by the Karnataka State Electricity Board in 1987. The complaint was presented in 1992. It was held by the National Commission that the complaint was clearly barred by limitation and that no relief could be granted to the complainant in respect of the disconnection forming the basis of his complaint. In the present case also the disconnections complained of were effected on 19.11.1986 and 5.1.1987 and the complaint was presented only on 6.4.1993. The complaint was therefore clearly barred by time.
Final Decision: Appeal dismissed.
Mr. Justice S. Parvatha Rao, President— This is an unfortunate case in which we are unable to do justice to the complainant because of long gap of time which was inexplicably allowed to pass without any attention being paid. The appeal, FA. SR. No. 5/1998 itself was presented after a delay of 1314 days as per the calculation made by the learned Counsel presenting the appeal. The order appealed against is dated 18.4.1994. It must have been received in April, 1994 itself because according to the affidavit of the complainant filed in support of the application for condoning the delay (i.e. FA. IA. SR. No. 6/1998) he filed a review petition on 26.5.1994 itself. The appeal against the order dated 18.4.1994 was in fact presented on 1.1.1998. As the papers presented were not in order, the office returned the papers. Thereafter there was delay of 188 days in representation and FA. IA. No. 972/1998 was filed for condoning that delay of 188 days in representation. In the affidavit in support of that application for condoning the delay in representation, it was stated that the appeal papers were returned on 2.1.1998 itself i.e. on the next date of filing and that thereafter the Bundle got mixed with other bundles and that on a diligent search made after about four months i.e. on 26.4.1998, it was traced and then it was represented on 27.4.1998. It was again returned by the office for filing the requisite number of copies; but the Counsel seems to have thought that it was returned for filing certified copy of the order in CD No. 435/1993 and he immediately informed the complainant of that. The complainant took his own time and then finally, he applied for certified copy of the order and that was given to him on 17.8.1998. At the time of representing the appeal on 18.8.1998 it was discovered that original free copy of the order of the District Forum in CD No. 435/1993 was in fact filed alongwith the appeal papers on 1.1.1998 itself. We find that this is an incredible explanation because it was incumbent on the complainant to find out whether the bundle which was with his Counsel contained the copy of the order that was filed on 1.1.1998.
2. We were inclined to condone the delay in representation of appeal papers on payment of costs. But going through the explanation given for condoning the delay of 1314 days in presenting the appeal, we find that the reasons given do not make out anything like a sufficient cause for condoning the extremely inordinate delay. We therefore find that the appeal is barred by time. Consequently FA. IA. No. 972/1998 and FA. IA. SR. No. 6/1998 are dismissed and FA. SR. No. 5/ 1998 is rejected.
3. We have examined the order of the District Forum for finding out whether it is vitiated by any illegality or material irregularity warranting interference under Section 17(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant alleged that his three electricity connections were disconnected: one on 19.11.1986 and the remaining two on 5.1.1987. The disconnection was effected for non-payment of consumption charges from August, 1986 to December, 1986. The complainant disputes the said disconnection. However, he had approached the District Forum by way of the present complaint only on 6.4.1993 about six and half years after the disconnection. The District Forum found that it was barred by time.
4. Section 24-A was introduced into the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (‘the Act’ for short) by Act 50 of 1993 with effect from 18.6.1993. Sub-section (1) of Section 24-A provides that “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”. The present complaint was filed by the petitioner/ appellant on 6.4.1993 before Section 24-A came into effect. Prior to the insertion of Section 24-A, no time was fixed for presenting the complaints before the Tribunals under the Act. But the National Commission hel
