HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. DINESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the terminus a quo for determining the period of limitation prescribed by Sec.15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 , beings from the date of the order itself or from the date of the receipt of a copy thereof communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the Haryana Consumer Protection Rules, 1988 ? This is the significant threshold question in this set of three closely connected appeals (First Appeal Nos.16, 17 and 18 of 1990), all preferred by the Haryana State Electricity Board. This order will govern all of them.

(2.) The relevant facts giving rise to the issue aforesaid may be representatively noticed with relative brevity from First Appeal No.16 of 1990 (Haryana State Electricity Board V/s. Dinesh Kumar ). The respondent along with his father had jointly preferred a complaint before District Forum, Hissar, with regard to the excessive demands raised against him for electricity charges. The District Forum partly allowed the respondent's claim and directed that the demand of Rs.900/- be reduced with regard to the electricity consumed by two fans and the relevant bill amended accordingly. The order of the District Forum is dated the 25th July, 1990. The present appeal was filed before the Commission on the 21st September, 1990 and in the heading of the Grounds of Appeal it was mentioned that the order under appeal was received by the appellant on the 17th September, 1990.

(3.) Notice of the appeal was served on the respondent and inter-alia, a legal objection about the maintainability thereof was raised on his behalf on the ground of limitation. It was reiterated that the order under appeal being clearly dated 25th July, 1990, the filing of the present appeal on the 21st September, 1990 was grossly beyond the prescribed period of 30 days under Sec.15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called 'the Act' ). It was further pointed out that no reason has been given by the appellant for filing the appeal beyond the said period.