Government Of U T Electricity Department vs RAM LUBHAI

THIS appeal has been filed against the order dated 9.6.2005 in Complaint Case No. 107 of 2004 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -I, U.T., Chandigarh.

THE above mentioned complaint was filed by Smt. Ram Lubhai averring deficiency in services on the part of OP Nos. 1 to 4 regarding the electricity supply to her meter bearing A/c No. 3008/72492/W 70492, installed at SCO No. 49, Sector 30 -C, Chandigarh. Upon issuance of notice, OP Nos. 1 to 3 filed the joint reply. The S.D.O Water Supply impleaded as OP No. 4 moved an application stating therein that a settlement had been reached between the complainant and OP No. 4. The complainant also agreed to get the name of OP No. 4 deleted from the array of the parties. The complaint was decided on merit by the District Forum -I on 9.6.2005 and a certified copy of the same despatched on 19.7.2005, as per record of the file. Aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the complainant filed an appeal bearing No. 149 of 2005 before this Commission praying that the respondents be directed to pay compensation amount to the tune of Rs. 35,000 per month towards the losses suffered by her due to illegal action on the part of respondents/OPs. This Commission vide its order dated 30.9.2005 held that since no cogent proof regarding the sufferance of losses was furnished by the complainant, the District Forum rightly rejected the prayer for compensation of Rs. 35,000 per month. The checking report of the Junior Engineer was upheld wherein it was stated that load of electricity at the premises in question was 5.0 K.W. and not .520 as averred by the complainant. The respondents/OPs were directed to refund the remaining amount, if any. The appeal was dismissed with above stated limited observations without any order as to costs. The order in appeal was signed on 30.9.2005 and the same was despatched to the parties on 13.10.2005 as per record of this Commission.

THE respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 have filed this appeal bearing No. 195 of 2005 on 14.10.2005 with an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of Limitation Act. The appellants/OPs have averred that the certified copy of the impugned order dated 9.6.2005 of District Forum -I was received on 29.7.2005. After the receipt of the same, the appellant No. 3 sought the advice of District Attorney on 8.8.2005. The advice of District Attorney received on 16.8.2005 was sent to Executive Engineer, Electricity Operation, Division No. 3, U.T., Chandigarh on 24.8.2005 for getting the opinion of L.R., U.T., Chandigarh for challenging the impugned order. As per facts stated in the grounds of delay in filing the appeal, the appellants have further stated that the L.R sent it to Superintending Engineer, Electricity on 5.9.2005, the Superintending Engineer received the advice from L.R., U.T., Chandigarh on 29.9.2005, conveyed the same to Executive Engineer, Electricity Division No. 3 on 3.10.2005 and same was received in the office of respondent No. 3 on 4.10.2005. In nutshell the appellants/OPs have stated that 44 days got spent in examining the matter at the various levels stated above, to take the decision about filing of appeal in the State Commission. The appellant has further stated that the delay in filing appeal is procedural and not wilful or intentional and sufficiently explained, with a prayer for condoning the same on the above stated grounds. It has also been prayed that the appeal was delayed by 44 days as the matter had to be dealt at the different levels, so a lenient view be taken in the interest of substantial justice and the grievance of the appellants be considered on merit by condoning the delay of 44 days.

IN the grounds of appeal, the appellants have assailed the order of the District Forum on the grounds that the Forum wrongly interpreted the instruction No. 35 of conditions of supply given in the Sale Manual. Further the appellants have alleged that the Forum below has not looked into condition No. 4 and Sub -clauses 4 and 7 of Instruction No. 35 which mentions specifically before allowing the connection, the defaulting amount, if any and reconnection fee of the service meter, rental and monthly minimum charges for the entire period of disconnection shall be recovered. It has been prayed that order dated 9.6.2005 passed by the Forum be set aside and the complaint be dismissed. Upon perusal of the record of the case, pleadings of the parties and application for condonation of delay we are of considered opinion that no case for condoning the delay in filing the appeal can justifiably be made out by the appellant. In fact at this stage, in instant case it cannot be stated that appeal has been filed with a delay. The appeal is not maintainable at all, due to the fact that the State Commission had admitted the matter in the Appeal No. 149 of 2005 filed by the complainant and decided the same on merit on 30.9.2005. Since it is a settled law that a matter once finally concluded by any Court cannot be reopened by the same Court, no application for condonation of delay or the merit of the same can be considered now, as that stage was over once this Commission pronounced the order in Appeal Case No.149 of 2005. During the course of proceedings in the Commission, the learned Government Pleader Mr. C.D. Ranga vehemently prayed to consider the case of the appellant in view of genuine reasons stated in the application for condonation which resulted in delay in filing the appeal. However, since the order of this Commission in Appeal No.149 of 2005 was despatched on 13.10.2005 to the parties, no consideration on the merit of application for condoning the delay or on the merit of the grounds of appeal can be given by this Commission. Hence, the appeal is dismissed as the same being not maintainable having been filed after the impugned order has been challenged in appeal and final order pronounced on 30.9.2005.

IN view of the above, Appeal No. 195 of 2005 is dismissed and decision of this Commission in Appeal No. 149 of 2005 shall be complied by both the parties. No order as to costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.