The importance of demonstrating 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay in filing an appeal and the court's deference to the findings of the District Forum regarding deficiency in service by the appellant.

Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Prasad, President—The present appeal, filed by the appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), is directed against order dated 26.4.1999, passed by District Forum No.-I in Complaint Case No. 932/96—entitled Shri Suraj Bhan v. The Assistant Finance Officer, DESU & Anr.

2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the respondent filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum, averring that the respondent had occupied premises, bearing No. 2695, Plot No. 11, Sadar Thana Road, Delhi on rental basis w.e.f. 25.12.1988. As the abovesaid premises, taken on rent, by the respondent, had no electric connection, the respondent applied for an electric connection and a sum of Rs. 750/- was deposited by the respondent with the appellant on 25.1.1989. The case of the respondent, before the District Forum, was that though meter was installed on 16.3.1989 but the respondent did not receive any bill for the consumption of electricity despite repeated request till May, 1996. It was stated that in May, 1996, the respondent received 1st bill for electricity consumption in respect of abovesaid meter amounting to Rs. 2,43,100/- for the consumption of 90,940 units. The grievance of the respondent in the complaint filed by him before the District Forum, in nutshell, was that the bill received by him, from the appellant D.V.B., was highly inflated/excessive. In the complaint, filed by the respondent, before the District Forum, it was prayed that the bill in question be quashed; the supply of energy be not disconnected till the dispute is finally decided; that the respondent be issued a bill for the actual consumption and the appellant be directed to send the bills regularly. The respondent also claimed compensation to the extent of Rs. 15,000/- and litigation expenses to the extent of Rs. 7,200/-.

3. The claim of the respondent/complainant, in the District Forum, was contested by the appellant, who filed a written statement. The stand, taken by the appellant, before District Forum, was that the delay in issuing the bill in respect of the meter in question was due to the fact that the appellant had switched over the system of issuing electricity bills from manual to computerised ones and the particulars of the meter in question could not be feeded in the computer in time as a result of which, the bill could not be issued in time. It was also stated that bill for May, 1996 was as per readings recorded in the meter. It was contended in the written statement that on a representation made by the respondent, the Inspector of the appellant, visited the premises on 13.6.1996 and found that the meter was moving in right direction. It was stated that the bill was correct and the complaint, filed by the respondent, was liable to be dismissed.

4. The learned District Forum, vide impugned order, has held that appellant guilty of deficiency in service and has directed that the bill for the period from 1989 to May, 1996, be revised on the basis of average reading of the meter or on the basis of minimum guarantee amount whichever is more. It was also directed that in the revised bill, no LPC charges would be added. The respondent was given the liberty to make the payment of the revised bill in 7 equal monthly instalments and the 1st instalment was payable within one month of the receipt of the revised bill and till the revision of the electricity bill, in terms of the above order, the electricity of the respondent was not to be disconnected.

5. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 15 of the Act.

6. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant at length on the question of admission of the present appeal and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. The order, being impugned in the present proceedings, was passed by the learned District Forum on 26.