Full Judgment
Gurdev Singh, President:
1. The appellant/complainant, Jasvir Singh, has preferred this appeal against the order dated 19.6.2012 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sri Muktsar Sahib (in short, œDistrict Forum?), vide which the complaint filed by him under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for the issuance of directions mentioned in the prayer clause thereof was dismissed.
2. As per the averments made by the complainant, in his complaint, he applied for electric motor connection to the opposite party on 29.9.1997 and deposited Rs.270/-, vide receipt No.360. The seniority list of the electric connections to be installed in his village was released. He was entitled to the installation of the electric connection by paying Rs.9,000/- by way of demand notice. The same was not released and he filed Complaint No.179 of 2011 for directing the opposite party to install the electric connection for the tubewell. That complaint was accepted by the District Forum, vide order dated 14.12.2011 and the opposite party was directed to issue the demand notice. In the year 1997, the total amount of the demand notice was only Rs.9,000/- but the opposite party issued the demand notice for a sum of Rs.61,615/-. He requested the opposite party to withdraw the excess amount of the demand notice but it refused to do so. His brother Manjit Singh had applied for the tubewell connection at the same time and had paid Rs.9,000/- by way of demand notice. Therefore, no amount in excess of Rs.9,000/- can be asked from him. As a result of the negligence of the opposite party in not supplying the electric connection, he was forced to run his tubewell with diesel engine upon which he spent about Rs.40,000/- and as a result thereof, he suffered huge loss. The non-supplying of the electric connection by the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service; which caused great mental tension, agony and harassment to him. He prayed for the issuance of the following directions to the opposite party:-
1. to install the electric connection as soon as possible;
2. to pay Rs.40,000/- spent by him on diesel to run tubewell ;
3. to declare the demand notice No.18903 dated 29.9.1997 null and void in which Rs.61,615/- was demanded instead of Rs.9,000/-;
4. not to install the electric connection of those applicants whose serial numbers come after his serial number;
5. to pay compensation of Rs.30,000/- for loss caused to him by opposite parties knowingly, intentionally with mala fide by delaying in installation of his electric connection and on account of mental tension, harassment etc.;
6. to pay compensation of Rs.1,000/- per day in future till the installation of the electric connection;
7. to pay Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses forced upon him to file the present complaint.
3. The opposite party did not appear before the District Forum and was proceeded against ex parte. To succeed in the complaint, the complainant proved on record his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, affidavits of Amarjit Singh and Manjit Singh Ex.CW2/A and Ex.CW3/A, respectively and documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6. After going through that evidence and hearing learned counsel for the complainant the District Forum dismissed his complaint, vide aforesaid order.
4. No one appeared before us at the time of arguments. We have carefully gone through the impugned order and the records of the District Forum.
5. The relevant portion of the impugned order reads as under:-
œ7. Now, the complaint in hand is second complaint on the same subject matter. Firstly, it attracts the principle of res judicata and secondly if any effective order in any manner is passed, it would amount to revision of order dated 14.12.2001 passed in Complaint No.179 of 2011. Therefore, complaint is not maintainable.?
6. The order reflects the total non-application of mind to the facts of the case and the ignorance of the basic law. The District Forum itself reproduced para no.6 of the order dated 14.12.2011, vide which the previous complaint filed by the complainant was decided and that order was proved on the record as Ex.C-2. Vide that order, the opposite party was directed to issue fresh demand notice and the complainant was directed to comply with the same according to the rules and regulations and thereafter the opposite party was to release/install the tubewell connection within the prescribed period. It is very much apparent from the facts of the complaint that while complying with that order the opposite party issued the fresh demand notice for Rs.61,615/-. The contention of the complainant is that the said amount has been demanded in excess and the opposite party could have demanded only Rs.9,000/-; as was demanded from similarly situated persons. The question to be decided was, whether the amount was being demanded in excess? There was no question of the application of the principle of res judicata as the point in dispute in the present complaint was never finally decided while deciding the previous complaint. We fail to understand as to how the deciding of the present complaint on merits would amount to the review of the previous order dated 14.12.2011. The District Forum adopted a short-cut method to dispose of the complaint while throwing the provisions of law to wind and such a practice is liable to be deprecated.
7. In the result, the appeal is accepted, the order under appeal is set aside and the complaint is remanded back to the District Forum for deciding the same afresh on merits within the statutory period. The parties are directed to appear before it on 11.2.2014. The records of the District Forum be sent back immediately.
8. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.