Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
J.M. Malik, Presiding Member and Vinay Kumar, Member
MUNESH DEVI - Appellant
Versus
U.P. POWER CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS. - Respondents
Original Petition No. 253 of 2002
Decided on : 18-02-2013
Ms. Shaveta Choudhary and Mr. Jatin Rajput, Advocates, for the Appellant; Mr. Daleep Kr. Dhayani, Mr. Pradeep Misra and Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocates, for the Respondent
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of adhering to the limitation period under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act and the requirement for sufficient cause for condonation of delay.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Compensation Claim - Section 24A - Summary: The court discussed the complaint filed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for compensation due to the death of the complainant's husband caused by a transformer maintained by the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. The court emphasized the importance of filing complaints within the limitation period and the requirement for sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The court cited legal provisions from Section 24A and relevant case law to support its decision to dismiss the complaint as barred by time.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant filed a complaint seeking compensation for the death of her husband caused by a transformer maintained by the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. The complaint was filed after the limitation period, and the complainant failed to prove sufficient grounds for condonation of delay.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complaint was filed after the limitation period, and the complainant failed to prove sufficient grounds for condonation of delay. The court dismissed the complaint as barred by time.
Issues: The issues involved the timeliness of the complaint, the requirement for sufficient cause for condonation of delay, and the entitlement to compensation under the Consumer Protection Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, which prescribes the limitation period for filing a complaint and allows for condonation of delay if sufficient cause is shown. The court also cited relevant case law to emphasize the peremptory nature of the limitation period and the duty of the consumer forum to examine the timeliness of the complaint.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the complaint as barred by time, citing the failure to prove sufficient grounds for condonation of delay and emphasizing the importance of adhering to the limitation period under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act.
ORDER
J.M. Malik, Presiding Member - 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 11.7.2002, by Smt. Munesh Devi, Widow of late Shri Jagbir Singh, R/o. A/103, Sunita Vihar, 100 ft. Road, Loni, Tehsil and 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 5.2.2000 at about 6.00 p.m. He received 85% burn injuries. He was taken to Safdarjung Hospital where he succumbed to burn injuries on 8.2.2000.
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 lakh 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 1.7.1961 and he passed away when his age was 38 years 7 months. The complainant, at the time of her husband's death, was about 33 years and she has to look after her three minor children.
4. The complainant approached the civil Court, Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble 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 complainant's 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. 1,50,607.50
