KRISHAN KUMAR Vs. SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Delay of one day in filing this revision petition is condoned.

(2.) The only issue which arises in this revision petition is as to whether the consumer complaint filed by the petitioner was time-barred.

(3.) Briefly stated, the petitioner applied for a tube-well electric connection with the respondent Authorities vide his application dated 28.12.1992 and deposited security fees and completed other required formalities in this regard. After applying for the connection, the petitioner paid several visits requesting the respondents to release it in his favour but without success. It is submitted that vide notice No.3409, the respondent Authorities demanded huge amount under the new scheme of the Government called Tatkal Scheme which, according to the petitioner, was not binding upon him. Eventually, the petitioner lodged a complaint with the District Forum on 6.7.2010 praying for direction to the opposite parties / respondents to release the connection in favour of the complainant/petitioner with immediate effect without insisting for payment of the additional amount as per the demand notice issued to him. He also prayed for compensation for loss and harassment as well as the cost of litigation. On being noticed, the respondent Authorities denied any deficiency in service on their part and resisted the complaint on the ground that it was time barred and hence could not be entertained by the consumer Fora.