Mahesh Jangid vs CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR

THIS appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 1.8.2013 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench No.2, Jaipur (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Consumer Complaint No. 99/2010 Mahesh Chand Jangid Vs. Chairman and Managing Director, JVVNL and Ors. by which, complaint was dismissed.

BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/appellant''s electricity connection was disconnected by OP/respondent on 29.9.2007 on the basis of tampering with the meter based on inspection report dated 1.9.2007 and 29.9.2007. It was further submitted that complainant''s father Ganpat Ram filed complaint before District forum on 4.10.2002 on the same cause of action which was dismissed by District Forum and appeal filed by his father was partly allowed by learned State Commission vide order dated 16.1.2009 and directed OP to reconnect on depositing Rs.3,840/ -. Review petition filed by the complainant was also dismissed by order dated 6.1.2010. It was further submitted that on the basis of RTI information, the supply of electricity was not available on 29.9.2007 and in such circumstances, checking report dated 29.9.2007 is forged one and theft of electricity was not committed. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before State Commission. OP resisted complaint and submitted that as earlier complaint filed by father of the complainant on same cause of action was dismissed complaint was not maintainable. It was further submitted that electricity connection has not been transferred in the name of the complainant and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned State Commission after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint as not maintainable against which this appeal has been filed along with application for condonation of delay.

HEARD the appellant in person and perused record. Appellant has filed this appeal along with application for condonation of delay. He has not mentioned period of delay to be condoned in the application for condonation of delay, but as per office report, there is delay of 517 days in filing appeal. Paragraph 3 of the application runs as under: "That there has occurred some delay in filing the appeal but the delay has been unintentional and unavoidable and in the interest of justice it is essential that the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. By the impugned order the appellant has already been rendered without any remedy since the State Commission has dismissed on the complaint on wrong notion that it is a review petition and the High Court has not entertained the writ petition on the ground that it is not maintainable. Therefore, in case the present appeal is not entertained all doors of the appellant to get justice, which is his fundamental right, will be closed".

In this application appellant has not disclosed any reason for delay in filing appeal. During the course of arguments, appellant submitted that on account of illness of his son, appeal could not be filed in time. I do not find any such averment in the application and in the absence of any averment as well document, I do not find any explanation for condonation of inordinate delay of 517 days in filing appeal in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon''ble Apex Court in (1) Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and Anr., 2010 5 SCC 459; (2) Office of The Chief Post Master General and Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. and Anr., 2012 3 SCC 563 and (3) Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority,2012 2 CPC 3.

AS there is delay of 517 days in filing appeal without any explanation, application for condonation of delay is dismissed.

AS far merits of the case is concerned, complainant''s father filed complaint on the same cause of action which was dismissed by District forum and appeal was also partly dismissed by State Commission and his review petition was also dismissed even then he has filed another complaint on the same cause of action before State Commission which would amount to review its earlier order was not maintainable. He could have filed only before District Forum if law permitted.

IN the light of aforesaid discussion, appeal is liable to be dismissed in limine.

CONSEQUENTLY , appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed in limine as barred by limitation as well on merits.