PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. AJMER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -the important point of law involved in the present connected six appeals is: "whether the terminus a quo for reckoning limitation under Sec.15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing an appeal in the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission against the order of the District Forum, runs from the date thereof and not from any actual or presumed date of receipt of its copy by the party concerned, as defined under Rule 4, sub-rule (10) of the Consumer Protection (Punjab) Rules, 1987 "

(2.) The appellants before us are Punjab State Electricity Board and its Sub Divisional Officer. They have challenged the order of the District Forum, Ropar in Consumer Case No.63 of 1993, decided on 26-11-1993 vide which it has ordered the release of tube-well connections under general category to the complainants. It is not disputed at the bar that the facts involved in these cases are identical and the District Forum has disposed of all the six complaints in the same terms by similar orders.

(3.) In all these cases (Misc. Application No.6 of 1994 and Appeal No.4 of 1994; Misc. Application No.7 of 1994 and Appeal No.5 of 1994; Misc. Application No.8 of 1994 and Appeal No.6 of 1994; Misc. Application No.9 of 1994 and Appeal No.7 of 1974; Misc. Application No.10 of 1994 and Appeal No.8 of 1994 and Misc. Application No.11 of 1994 and Appeal No.9 of 1994) copy of order of the District Forum is dated 26-11-1993 which was despatched to the parties by its office on 10-12-1993. It is the admitted case of the appellant-Board that certified copy of the impugned order was not applied for and these six appeals were filed in this Commission on 11-1-1994. Along with Memorandum of Appeal, separate applications for condonation of delay in all these cases have been moved, stating that the copy of the impugned order was despatched, with an endorsement dated 10-12-1993. It was received in the Office of the Executive Engineer of the Board on 12-12-1993 and the appeals are, thus, within the period of limitation from the date of communication thereof and even if there is any delay, it is inadvertant. In support of the application for condonation of delay, no affidavit whatsoever has been filed.