The court emphasized the need for adjudication on merits and applied the principles of condonation of delay, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in allowing the revision petition.

ORDER

Prem Narain, Member.—The present revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, challenging the order dated 9.2.2006 in FA No. 2659/2005 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana (hereinafter referred to as "the State Commission"). By the impugned order, the appeal filed against the order dated 16.9.2005 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kaithal in Complaint Case No. 376/03 has been dismissed along with the application seeking condonation of delay for 57 days in filing the appeal.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainants are agriculturalists, using tube wells to irrigate their agricultural land. The Complainants have electricity connection for running their tube wells. The electric Consumer A/C No. of Complainant No. 1 is D-219-AP and Complainant No. 2 is D-247-AP in village Simla. The complainants are consumers of electricity supplied by O.P. No. 1. It is the case of the complainants that there was a newly installed transformer in the fields of the complainants, installed in the name of Mewa at Village Simla. The new transformer replaced 100KVA transformer as the complainants were facing voltage problem on account of overloading the newly installed transformer was used to supply electricity to the complainants and Mr. Pale Ram. It is stated in the complaint that the latter is posted in the Army as Major and that is the reason why he could not be impleaded as complainant. It is the case of the complainants that the O.P. Nos. 2 to 4 in collusion with O.P. No. 5 used to switch off the electricity supply to the complainant's tube wells from the transformer to cause irreparable loss and damage to the crops of the complainants. Due to the act of the O.Ps., the complainants were unable to run their tube well and irrigate their fields.

3. Aggrieved by the conduct of the O.Ps., the complainant approached the District Forum by filing consumer complaint. The District Forum vide order dated 16.9.2005held as follows:

"11. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are deficient on their part. One, who is deficient, should suffer. The complainants should have not suffer at the hands of respondents. A transformer which was duly sanctioned by the competent authority of respondents should not removed of political vendetta. The respondents are supposed to be fair and impartial while performing their duties. When other consumers are consuming electricity from Urban Feeder, how the complainants are not entitled for the same benefit. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to install the transformer of 63KVA which was in the name of Mewa Singh and from which the complainants were drawing electricity on 12.1.2004. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are also directed to ensure regular supply of electricity to the complainants from that installed transformer. Complaint is accepted. No order as to costs. Compliance of the order shall be made within 30 days from the date on order. Parties be informed accordingly and file be consigned to the record-room after due compliance."

4. Aggrieved by the said order, the O.Ps., preferred an appeal before the State Commission along with an application seeking condonation of delay for 57 days in filing the appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The State Commission vide order dated 9.2.2006 held that the application seeking condonation of delay is meritless and dismissed the same. Consequently, the appeal filed by the OP was also dismissed.

5. Aggrieved by the said order, the OP has approached this Commission by way of the present petition.

6. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused record. Respondent has been proceeded ex parte vide order dated 28.11.2016 of this Commission.

7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that the delay of 57 days had occurred in filing the appeal be