Uttarakhand Power Corporation Limited, Through Its Executive Engineer and Another Vs. NaraIn Singh Naval - Court Judgment

B.C. Kandpal, President:

1. This revision petition under Section 17(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been preferred against the order dated 20.06.2013 passed by the District Forum, Tehri Garhwal in consumer complaint No. 01 of 2013, whereby the District Forum has dismissed the application dated 22.04.2013 Paper No. 15C/1 (Paper No. 19) moved by the revisionists for recalling the order to proceed the consumer complaint ex-parte against the revisionists.

2. The respondent “ complainant has filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Tehri Garhwal, alleging therein that the electricity department has issued him a bill for sum of Rs.1,03,457/-, which was not correct. It is further alleged that on 05.09.2012, the electricity department sent a letter to the District Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal for recovering the above amount from the complainant as arrears of land revenue. The complainant has stated that the said demand is illegal and filed the consumer complaint for cancellation of the recovery certificate and also sought ancillary reliefs.

3. The consumer complaint was filed before the District Forum on 17.01.2013. The registered notice was sent to the electricity department by the District Forum on 19.01.2013, but none turned up before the District Forum on behalf of the electricity department on the date fixed and no written statement was also filed by the electricity department. Therefore, the District Forum vide order dated 20.02.2013 directed the consumer complaint to proceed ex-parte against the opposite party “ electricity department.

4. Thereafter, the electricity department moved an application for recalling the order dated 20.02.2013, which was dismissed by the District Forum per impugned order dated 20.06.2013. Aggrieved, the revisionists have filed the present revision petition.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for parties and have also perused the record.

6. At the outset, we may state that in respect of the above matter, the revisionists have also earlier filed a revision petition before this Commission bearing Revision Petition No. 06 of 2013; Uttarakhand Power Corporation Limited and another Vs. Sh. Narain Singh Naval, against the order dated 22.03.2013 passed by the District Forum, whereby the District Forum has restrained the revisionists from recovering the amount in question from the complainant till further ordeRs.The said revision petition was decided by this Commission per order dated 06.05.2013 and the revision petition was dismissed, but it was directed that the revisionists shall file their written statement before the District Forum and contest the consumer complaint on merit. As is stated above, the order to proceed the consumer complaint ex-parte against the electricity department, was passed by the District Forum on 20.02.2013 and the above-mentioned revision petition came to be decided on 06.05.2013 and in view of this Commission having granted opportunity to the revisionists to file their written statement before the District Forum and to contest the consumer complaint on merit, the order dated 20.02.2013 passed by the District Forum automatically stand set aside by this Commission.

7. The perusal of the record shows that after the District Forum has passed the order dated 20.02.2013 for proceeding the consumer complaint ex-parte against the electricity department, an application dated 08.03.2013 Paper No. 9A/1 (Paper No. 17) supported with an affidavit (Paper No. 18) was moved before the District Forum and the said application was not decided by the District Forum and the same remained pending. The perusal of the impugned order shows that the same has been passed on application Paper No. 15C/1, inspite of the fact that the application Paper No. 9A/1 was not decided by the District Forum. Thus, the District Forum has committed material irregularity and the orders dated 20.02.2013 and 20.06.2013 passed by the District Forum are liable to be set aside.

8. The Honble Apex Court in the case of Topline Shoes Ltd. Vs. Corporation Bank; II (2002) CPJ 7 (SC), has observed that œit is for the Forum or the Commission to consider all facts and circumstances along with the provisions of the Act providing time frame to file reply, as a guideline, and then to exercise its discretion as best it may serve the ends of justice and achieve the object of speedy disposal of such cases keeping in mind the principle of natural justice as well.?

9. The Honble National Commission in the case of Mathura Mahto Mistry Vs. Bindeshwar Jha (Dr.) and another; I (2008) CPJ 109 (NC), has held that disposing of the complaint simply on pleadings without directing the parties to file evidence by way of affidavits is illegal on the face of it. The Honble National Commission in the aforesaid judgment has also held that œmoreover without adducing evidence, both the parties obviously did not get an opportunity to prove their respective case, in view of which, we are unable to sustain the order passed by the District Forum, which is set aside and the case is remanded back to the Forum below to give an opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence by way of affidavits and also permit cross-examination through questionnaire and reply and only after completion of all the necessary procedure as per law, the District Forum shall hear the case on merit and dispose it of preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.?

10. However, it was desirable on the part of the revisionists to file their written statement before the District Forum immediately after the order dated 06.05.2013, but the record shows that the same was not done. It is true that there have been laches and carelessness on the part of the electricity department in contesting the present matter. A perusal of the order dated 06.05.2013 passed by this Commission reveals that no date was fixed by this Commission for filing the written statement by the revisionists, but still it was incumbent upon the revisionists to have filed their written statement without any further delay, which was not done. However, justice requires that one more opportunity and not more be granted to the revisionist to file their written statement in the case and to contest the consumer complaint on merit, on payment of costs of Rs.2,000/- payable to the respondent “ complainant and the revisionists shall file their written statement before the District Forum on or before 10.03.2014 positively and the revision petition is to be disposed of accordingly.

11. With the above observations, the revision petition is disposed of. Orders dated 20.02.2013 and 20.06.2013 passed by the District Forum are set aside. The revisionists are directed to file their written statement before the District Forum on or before 10.03.2014 positively subject to the payment of costs of Rs.2,000/- to the respondent “ complainant, which shall be paid by the revisionists to the respondent “ complainant at the time of filing their written statement. It is made clear that the District Forum shall not grant any adjournment to the revisionists seeking time for filing the written statement. The District Forum shall thereafter decide the consumer complaint as expeditiously as possible. Copy of the order be sent to the District Forum, Tehri Garhwal immediately. Costs of this revision petition shall be borne by the parties.