ORDER K.S. Gupta, J. (Member)

1. In the amended complaint it was alleged that complainant obtained SSI registration and NOC under the provisions of Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 on 21.8.1984 for setting up a unit for manufacturing of Calcium Hydro-Oxide at Village Shahbuddinpur, District Saharanpur. Land on which unit was to be installed was purchased under a sale deed dated 23.2.1985 from one Tungal. After obtaining loan from U.P. Financial Corporation the complainant set up the unit. Complainant was sanctioned 3 KV temporary domestic electric connection vide sanction letter No. 1972 dated 23.5.1995. Load of 102 HP was given by OP No. 1 vide sanction letter No. 82 dated 23.9.1985. Estimate of expenditure was sent by opposite party No. 1 to the complainant on 26.5.1985. It was further alleged that Calcium Hydro-Oxide is a compound of Calcium which is available in lime stone. Quick lime is heated in lime kiln and process of production requires continuous power. Opposite party No. 1 also made it mandatory for the industrial units requiring continuous power to have an independent feeder for continuous supply. Opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 took 463 days in preparing the line chart of independent feeder to be provided to the complainant and the tentative estimate thereof. Estimate was delivered to the complainant on 30.12.1986. Complainant deposited the amount of Rs. 42,300 on 19.1.1987, Rs. 57,000 on 17.2.1987 and Rs. 36,018 on 27.2.1987, totalling Rs. 1,35,318 through bank drafts with opposite party No. 1. On security amount being revised by the said opposite parties from Rs. 9,810 to Rs. 16,350, amount of Rs. 4,905 was deposited on 21.2.1987, Rs. 8,145 on 2.3.1987 and Rs. 3,300 in three instalments through bank drafts by the complainant. It was further alleged that opposite party No. 2 by the letter No. 995 dated 3.3.1987 directed the Sub-Divisional Officer to take up the line work of the complainant company and submit compliance report immediately. Said opposite parties had to supply electricity to the complainant through Over Circuit Breaker(OCB) for which Rs. 67,560 was demanded which was deposited by the complainant. It was stated that opposite parties started supplying power to the complainant w.e.f. 21.5.1987 from the World Bank Feeder on Wooden Poles. World Bank Feeder was installed for tube wells to be used for irrigation purposes and not for the industrial purposes. There had been frequent failure of supply of power and duration of supply was also restricted to 8 to 10 hours and that too with much fluctuations of voltage. This adversely affected the manufacturing process of the complainant. Complainant, therefore, wrote letters dated 16.6.1987, 19.1.1988, 24.3.1988 and 19.9.1988 to opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 complaining of non-supply of continuous power to the unit. On conditional representation made by the complainant dated 16.9.1988 the opposite parties disconnected the supply of power on 22.9.1988. Temporary connection was also disconnected on 23.9.1988. It was pleaded that State Government have established Laghu Udyog Bandhu, having its Head Office at Lucknow for revival and solving other problems of small scale industries. The complainant made a detailed complaint against the opposite party Electricity Board and others to the Executive Director, Laghu Udyog Bandhu on 5.10.1995. By letter No. 689-90 dated 23.7.1992 the Director of Industries, Kanpur instructed the Executive Director of Laghu Udyog Bandhu to list the complainant's complaint on the agenda of next meeting with a copy to the complainant Company. No action seems to have been taken on the said complaint which was still pending. It was further pleaded that complainant was forced to file a complaint being No. 343 of 1993 on 30.9.1993 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow against the opposite parties and others. Since the compensation claimed was enhanced on an application filed by the complainant on 1.8.1995 the State Commission allowed the withdrawal of the complaint by the order dated 2.4.1996. On ground of deficiency in service on part of opposite parties the reliefs claimed in para No. 28 of the complaint are as under:

  (a) Losses as detailed in the
statement of account annexed
as Annexure A-68 to the
complaint:                        Rs. 15,00,000
(b) Losses of reputation
and goodwill suffered by
the complainant Co.
due to unlawful confinement
of its Ex-Managing Director
of Civil Prison in the
Recovery proceedings on
behalf of opposite party No. 1:   Rs.  10,00,000
                                  ______________
Total                              Rs. 25,00,000
                                  ______________
 

2. Refund was further claimed of the amount of Rs. 1,91,689 with interest @ 25% w.e.f. 27.2.1987 from the opposite parties.
 

3. Present complaint was filed on 11.8.1995 during the pendency of Complaint Case No. 343/1993 before the State Commission. Later complaint was allowed to be withdrawn by the State Commission on an application filed by the complainant by the order dated 2.4.1996. U.P. Financial Corporation, Regional Office at 10-B, Avas Vikas, Saharanpur and U.P. Financial Corporation having its Head Office at 14/88, Civil Lines, Kanpur were impleaded as opposite parties 4 and 5 in the complaint initially filed on 11.8.1995. In view of the statement made by complainant's Counsel that complainant would file separate complaint against opposite parties Nos. 4 and 5, complaint qua them was dismissed. On being pointed out by the Counsel of opposite party No. 1 that OP No. 1 has been trifurcated and this case pertains to UP Power Corporation Ltd., the complainant filed application seeking impleadment of U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and its officers in place of opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 which was allowed by the order dated 28.8.2004. Opposite parties 1 to 3 filed a joint written version. By way of preliminary objections, it was alleged that on complainant's letter dated 16.9 1988, electric connection was permanently disconnected by the answering opposite parties on 22.9.1988. Cause of action, if any, to file complaint, thus, arose on 22.9.1988 and the complaint filed in the year 1995 was hopelessly barred by time. On merits it was alleged that the reason for non-running of unit of the complainant was litigation with Anuj Kumar and others who had obtained stay order on 29.10.1985 from Civil Judge, Saharanpur against the running of unit. Though this stay was vacated on 24.12.1985 but on that date itself another stay against running of unit was passed by IIIrd Additional Civil Judge, Saharanpur. On this stay being vacated on 30.10.1986, the other party filed writ petition in Allahabad High Court and the High Court granted stay on 10.11.1986. Ultimately, case was remanded to IVth Additional Civil Judge, Saharanpur. Case also continued in the Court of Havali Munsif. During these proceedings, certain directions were passed against the Directors of complainant company and on their having committed contempt they were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one month by the order dated 29.4.1988. It was alleged that complainant had not disclosed all these facts in the complaint and tried to shift liability of not running the unit on the answering opposite parties. Though allegations in regard to complainant having deposited amount for an independent feeder were not denied but it was alleged that supply of electricity cannot be ensured for all 24 hours.

4. It was contended by Mr. T. Mahipal for opposite parties that electric connection was permanently disconnected on the request of complainant itself made vide letter dated 16.9.1988, on 22.9.1988 and cause of action, if any, to file complaint arose to the complainant on 22.9.1988 and the complaint filed some time in August, 1995 is hopelessly barred by limitation. On the other hand, it was urged by Shri N.M. Popli for complainant that cause of action started running from 7.10.1992 on which date a representation was made by the complainant to Laghu Udyog Bandhu set up by the State Government for revival and solving problems of small scale industries and the complaint is, thus, within limitation. It was further argued that delay, if any, in filing complaint deserves to be condoned under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the 'Act'). In support of the submission, attention was drawn to para No. 6 of the complaint filed before the State Commission and para No. 30 of the amended complaint. At the cost of repetition it may be mentioned that Complaint Case No. 343/93 was initially filed by the complainant before the State Commission, Lucknow on 30.9.1994 and during the pendency of that complaint, present complaint was filed in this Commission. Subsequently on an application filed by the complainant, Complaint Case No. 343/93 was allowed to be withdrawn by the State Commission by the order dated 2.4.1996. It is admitted case of both the parties that electric connection was permanently disconnected by the opposite parties on 22.9.1988. This date will, thus, be taken as starting point of limitation for the purpose of filing of complaint. To be only noticed that in para No. 38 of the present complaint the cause of action against the opposite parties is alleged to have arisen on 20.12.1993 as shown in para No. 14 of the complaint. In para No. 14, it is alleged that opposite party Board adopted harassment tactics and illegally got arrested one of Ex-Managing Director of the complainant, namely, Satish Kumar Bansal for recovery of alleged electricity dues. With respect to accrual of cause of action the complainant has taken different stands in Complaint Case No. 343/93, in the amended complaint and in complaint initially filed in August, 1995. Making of representation to Laghu Udyog Bhandu on 7.10.1992 by the complainant has no relevance whatsoever as regards limitation for filing complaint. Date of 20.12.1993 on which one of the Ex-Managing Director" of complainant was arrested for recovery of electricity dues has no relevance in the matter. It is true that in para No. 30 of amended complaint prayer is made to condone the delay, if any, in filing complaint but the reasons therefor have not been disclosed. For condoning delay sufficient cause is to be shown by the complainant. It may be mentioned that on date of permanent disconnection of electricity i.e. 22.9.88 no limitation was prescribed for filing complaint in the Act of 1986. A suit for recovery of amount of Rs. 15 lakh by way of compensation as claimed in the complaint could have been filed within three years of the accrual of cause of action i.e. upto 21.9.1991 under the Limitation Act, 1963. On the analogy of Article 44 of the Schedule to the said Act, the complainant was supposed to file complaint within a period of three years from the date of accrual of cause of action which in present case is 22.9.1988. Thus, two complaints - one filed before the State Commission and another before this Commission were not within time and complaint, therefore, deserves to be dismissed on that score alone. Claim of Rs. 10 lakh made towards loss of reputation and loss suffered by the complainant company due to illegal arrest of its Ex-Managing Director is not maintainable under the Act. Having reached this conclusion allegation of the opposite parties being deficient in service in not providing electricity from independent feeder line need not be gone into.

5. Accordingly, complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost.