AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Avm J. Rajendra, Avsm Vsm (Retd.),Presiding Member
This Revision Petition No. 1238 of 2023 challenges the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (‘State Commission’) dated 17.03.2023, vide which, the State Commission dismissed the Appeal No.366/2017 filed by the Petitioner/ Complainant. In turn, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North-East, Delhi (‘District Forum’) dated 31.05.2017 partly allowed the Complaint No.44/2015.
Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that his electricity connection was disconnected due to non-payment of an inflated bill of Rs.2,50,000. Despite his complaints and OP’s inspection revealing that the meter reading was wrong, the OP issued a revised bill of Rs.2,52,450.57, which was still excessive. He filed Consumer Complaint No. 67 of 2006 before the District Consumer Forum, alleging deficiency in service. The District Forum ruled in favor of the petitioner, directing the OP to restore the electricity supply and issue a revised bill of Rs.7,791 which the petitioner paid. However, the respondent failed to restore the electricity connection as directed. The petitioner filed an Execution Petition No. 127 of 2010 seeking enforcement of the District Forum's order. However, the execution was dismissed on the grounds that the petitioner failed to fulfil the commercial formalities, which he disputed. He filed Execution Appeal No. 33 of 2011 before the State Commission. The State Commission recorded undertaking of the respondent to restore the connection within 15 days. Despite this, the electricity connection was not restored until 2013, many years after the original disconnection in 1999. Dissatisfied with the prolonged failure to restore the power connection and absence of compensation for delay, the petitioner filed a revision petition before this Commission. This Commission vide order dated 17.09.2014, granted liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh complaint seeking compensation. The petitioner filed a second Consumer Complaint No. 44 of 2015 seeking compensation for the OP’s failure to restore the electricity connection for several years.
In its Reply, the OP raised objection that the complaint is barred by Res Judicata and not maintainable as same parties are litigating the same matter that has already been decided by a competent court or tribunal. The previous Complaint No. 67/2006 was filed by him regarding the same subject matter of dispute, which was disposed of by the District Forum on 28.07.2006, and no appeal was filed against that order. Therefore, the OP contended that the issues raised in the present complaint have already been resolved and cannot be litigated again, as both the parties and the issues in both complaints are the same. Further, the present complaint is also time-barred as it is filed beyond the limitation period. The Consumer Protection Act prescribes a limitation period of two years from the date on which the cause of action arose for filing a complaint. As per OP, the cause of action in this case arose in 2006, when the dispute regarding the electricity bill and disconnection occurred. However, he filed the current complaint only in 2015, which is seven years late and it is well beyond the statutory limitation period of two years. The OP sought dismissal of the complaint on the basis that it is both barred by the principle of res judicata and time-barred due to the expiration of the limitation period.
The District Forum, vide Order dated 31.05.2017, awarded a compensation of Rs.20,000 for mental harassment and Rs.3,000 for litigation costs.
The petitioner found this compensation inadequate, given the prolonged period during which the electricity was disconnected. The petitioner appealed the inadequate compensation vide FA/366/2017 before the State Commission.
The State Commission, vide Order dated 17.03.2023, dismissed the appeal with the following observations:
“9. The sole question for consideration in the present appeal is as to whether there is any illegality or material irregularities in the order dated 31.05.2017 passed by the District Forum North East in.
It is pertinent to mention that the appellant had filed the original complainant no. 67 /2006 before the District Forum North East, which was allowed vide order 28.07.2006. It is significant to note that against that order 28.07.2006 the appellant did not file any appeal by stating that no compensation was granted by the District Forum. It is also significant to note that after a period of almost four years, the appellant filed an execution petition no. 127 /2010 before the District Forum, to implement the order dated 28.07.2006 but the same was dismissed as the appellant, himself was found as faulter because he did not perform the commercial formalities. Thereafter, the appellant filed the first appeal no.33/2011 before the state commission, which was also dismissed as the opposite party had agreed to restore the electricity connection within 15 days. It is further significant to note that at that time also the appellant did not press for the grant of compensation and litigation costs and thereafter filed a revision petition no. 02/2013 before the State Commission, for grant of compensation, which was dismissed by the State Commission as the same was not entertainable being the review of the order dated 17.12.2012. Thereafter, the appellant filed a Revision petition for grant of compensation before the National Commission but the same was also dismissed by the National Commission being not maintainable.
It is worth noting that appellant has relied upon the judgment of National Commission in Chander Kant's case referred above. It is further worth noting that in the original complaint no.67/2006 the appellant had prayed for a sum of Rs.25000 as compensation for harassment and Rs.5000 as cost of litigation. In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the judgment of National Commission in Chander Kant's case relied upon by the appellant is not applicable to the facts of the present case. We are of the considered view that there is no illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order dated 31.05.2017 passed by District Forum.
Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed.”
Hence, the present Revision Petition.
In his arguments, the Counsel for the Petitioner/ Complainant reiterated that due to inadequate compensation awarded by the lower forums and the protracted delay in restoring the electricity connection, the revision petition was filed to seek higher compensation for the mental and financial distress endured for over a decade.
Per contra, the learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that they had complied with the District Forum's order by issuing a cheque for Rs.26,105, which included updated interest, but the petitioner refused to accept it citing the pending appeal. They argued for the dismissal of the revision petition.
I have examined the pleadings and associated documents placed on record, including the orders of the learned District Forum and the learned State Commission and rendered thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsels for both the parties.
The main issue to be determined in the case is whether there is merit in the claim for enhancement of compensation as awarded by the District Forum.
It is an admitted position that the electricity supply was restored on 01.01.2013 by the Respondent/OP. The Petitioner has not made any new grounds to enhance the compensation awarded by the District Forum. Moreover, I find no infirmity or illegality in the detailed and well reasoned order dated 17.03.2023 passed by the learned State Commission.
Based on the deliberations above, I do not find any merit in the present Revision Petition No.1238 of 2023 and the same is therefore, Dismissed.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, there shall be no order as to costs.
All pending Applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.