The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the limitation period prescribed by Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing a consumer complaint.

ORDER

Mr. J.M. Malik, J. Presiding Member - National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources, the complainant herein, has filed the instant consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties inasmuch as over charging the complainant in respect of electricity bill to the tune of Rs. 1,58,57,656/-. The complaint was filed in the Registry of this Commission on 03.12.2012 with following prayer:

i. Direct the Opposite Parties to settle the issue of over payments which is to the tune of Rs. 1,58,57,656/- (Rupees One Crores Fifty Eight Lacs Fifty Seven Thousand Six Hundred Fifty Six only);

ii. Direct to remove the aforesaid deficiency in services which has been caused on account of negligent services rendered by the Opposite Parties;

iii. Award the suitable compensation to the tune of Rs. 5 Lacs in favour of the Complainant and against the Opposite Parties;

iv. Award the interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the present complaint till its settlement;

v. Award the cost of litigation to the Complainant ;

vi. Any other/further order which this Hon'ble Commission may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the Complainant and against the Opposite Parties;

2. On careful perusal of the complaint, it is evident that alleged over payments were received by erstwhile Delhi Vidyut Board, the predecessor of OP No.1, namely, NDPL, during the period between April 1997 to December 2000 as per the details given in the chart below:

Sl No. Description Amount

(i) Over payment made to DVB during the period between April 1997 to December 2000 Rs. 1,14,71,801/-

(ii) Deposit under DVB Head 47.301 vide receipt No. 2144992 (+) Rs. 1,93,500/-

(ii) Deposit under DVB Head 47.601 receipt No.214492 dated 25.07.1995 (+) Rs. 3,23,212/-

(iv) Extra payment paid to NDPL w.e.f. April 1997 to December 2000 (+) Rs. 38,37,497/-

(v) Advance consumption deposit @ Rs. 250/- KW for the connection No.Y2091002254/BS08/41 (+) Rs. 1,25,000/-

Total Rs. 1,59,51,010/-

(vi) Adjustment for DVB against supplementary fuel charges for December 2000 in respect of the temporary connection No.2254 (-) Rs. 93,354/-

Balance amount due to be adjusted by DVB (Opposite Party No.1) Rs. 1,58,57,656/-

3. OP No.1 in the written statement in response to the consumer complaint besides various pleas on merits has pleaded that consumer complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation because it has been filed after a lapse of more than 12 years from the date on which the cause of action occurred.

4. As the issue of limitation goes to the root of the dispute, we have heard arguments on plea of limitation treating as preliminary issue.

5. Learned counsel for Opposite Party No.1 has taken us through the consumer complaint and submitted that undisputedly the instant consumer dispute raised by the complainant is in respect of the alleged plea of the over charging on account of electricity consumed during the period April 1997 to December 2000. Therefore, the cause of action to challenge the over charging by raising a consumer dispute arose way back in the year 2001. It is contended that the consumer complaint has been filed in the year 2001. It is contended that the consumer complaint has been filed on 03.12.2012 i.e. almost 12 years after the date on which the cause of action has arisen and, therefore the consumer complaint in view of Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is hopelessly barred by limitation. In support of his contention, learned counsel for Op No.1 has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of State Bank of India v. B S Agriculture Industries (I), (2009) 5 SCC 121.

6. Mr. S.S. Lingwal, Advocate for the complainant on the contrary has contended that undisputedly Op No.1 is the Successor-in-interest of Delhi Vidyut Board and in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of K.R Jain v. GNCTD, OP No.1 is under obligation to discharge the liability of Delhi Vidyut B