PUJA MEHTA Vs. TEKNOTECH INFORMATION SYSTEM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal, filed by the appellant under Sec.15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is directed against order dated 19.2.2003, passed by District Forum-III, Janak Puri, New Delhi in Complaint Case No.650/2002-entitled Shri S. P. Sachdeva V/s. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.

(2.) The facts relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, lie in a narrow compass. The appellant Shri S. P. Sachdeva had filed a complaint under Sec.12 of the Act before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. In the complaint, filed by the appellant, the appellant had prayed that directions be issued to the respondent to refund an amount of Rs.6,670/- together with compensation of Rs.10,000/-. In all, the appellant had claimed a sum of Rs.20,170/- to be paid to him by the respondent. The claim of the appellant in the District Forum was resisted by the respondent. The learned District Forum vide impugned order has dismissed the complaint, filed by the appellant. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal under Sec.15 of the Act.

(3.) We have heard the appellant at length on the question admission of the present appeal and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. On the basis of the documents/material on record, it is apparent that the learned District Forum has dismissed the complaint, filed by the appellant, on the ground that the same was barred by limitation. The learned District Forum has also held that besides being barred by limitation, the complaint filed by the appellant on merits also was devoid of substance. In our opinion, no fault can be found with the above findings of the learned District Forum because on the basis of material on record, it is apparent that the Executive Engineer of the respondent vide letter No. CV/d/pjb/387 dated 2.2.1998 and thereafter vide letter No. CB/d/pjb/622 dated 3.7.1998 had communicated to the appellant the sanction of the load but the appellant did not care to respond to the same from 1998 to June, 2002. During the course of arguments also, we have put a specific query to the appellant as to why he did not care to respond for nearly 4 years after the date of communication of the sanctioned load to him but the appellant could not give any satisfactory answer to our above query. In the presence of the above facts, no fault can be found with the findings of the learned District Forum. The order, being impugned in the present proceedings is a well-reasoned order which suffers from no infirmity so as to call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its appellate powers.