State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sri Lakhan Lal Sharma vs Bsnl on 11 March, 2011
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal BHABANI BHAVAN (GROUND FLOOR) 31, BELVEDERE ROAD, ALIPORE KOLKATA 700 027 S.C. CASE NO. FA/494/10 DATE OF FILING: 30.8.2010 DATE OF FINAL ORDER:
11.03.2011 APPELLANT Sri Lakhan Lal Sharma S/o. Late J. Sharma Vill. Kumardangi, P.O. Raiganj Dist. Uttar Dinajpur RESPONDENTS
1) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Sanchar Bhaban, New Delhi 110 001
2) General Manager Raiganj Telecom District State Bank Building P.O. Karnajora, P.S. Raiganj Dist. Uttar Dinajpur
3) Sub-Divisional Office Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Raiganj, P.S. Raiganj Dist. Uttar Dinajpur BEFORE :
HONBLE JUSTICE MR. PRABIR KUMAR SAMANTA, PRESIDENT MEMBER :
MRS. S. MAJUMDER FOR THE APPELLANT : Mr. S.K. Das, Advocate FOR THE RESPONDENT : Mr. S. Sikdar, Advocate :
O R D E R :
HONBLE JUSTICE MR. PRABIR KUMAR SAMANTA, PRESIDENT This appeal is by the DHr against order dated 05.8.2010 passed in Execution Case No.03/2002 thereby dismissing the same.
The complaint case being DF Case No.12 of 1998 was allowed in part on contest with the following directions by order dated 24.12.1999:
The petitioner do get an order for recovery of a sum of Rs.210/- alongwith interest @ Rs.18% thereon against the O.P.S. The petitioner do get an order for restoration of his telephone connection (bearing no.52283) at Raiganj against the O.P.S. The petitioner also do get an order for recovery of compensation @ Rs.300/- per day from 27.3.97 till restoration of his telephone connection.
The O.P.S. are directed to restore the telephone connection of the petitioner and to refund Rs.210/- alongwith compensation amount within 15(fifteen) days from the date of passing the final order.
The DHr. has himself stated in his above execution petition that OP had restored the telephone connection on 08.4.2002 and filed the above execution proceeding praying for imprisonment of the OPs for their arrogant behaviour and unexcusable conduct in not complying with the above order passed in the said DF Case No.12 of 1998.
The records of this case reveal that the DHr. filed Execution Case No.12 of 2000 for implementation of the said order which was dismissed by an order dated 24.11.2000 as the DHr. did not take any steps in the matters and was not found on repeated calls.
After a lapse of about one and half year the DHr. filed a further D.F. Case No.14 of 2002 for implementation of the said order instead of restoring the aforesaid execution proceeding. The DHr. also did not take any steps after filing of the said DF Case No.14 of 2002. The same was again dismissed for not taking steps in the matter with clear observation that said DF Case was filed wrongly, as for alleged non-implementation of an order made in a complaint case there cannot be a further complaint case.
Hence the present execution case with the prayers as above.
The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 under Section 26 has specifically stipulated that where a complaint instituted before the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, is found to be frivolous or vexatious, it shall, for reasons to be recorded in writing, dismiss the complaint and make an order that the complainant shall pay to the opposite party such cost, not exceeding Rs.10,000/- as may be specified in the order. The principle enunciated in the said Section can very well be applied in the execution proceedings too. It is well known that the proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act for disposal of complaint cases are in the nature of summary proceeding. The elaborate procedure for execution of an order, as provided under the Civil Procedure Court, has also not been prescribed in the Act. Except as provided under Section 13(4) of the said Act the Code of Civil Procedure does not have any application in its term for the purpose of disposal of the complaint case or the appeal filed under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The sole purpose and objective of the Consumer Protection Act is to provide speedy, inexpensive remedy without adopting elaborate procedural formalities.
In the case in hand it is abundantly clear that even upon restoration of the complainants telephone connection by the OPs, the complainant kept on filing one after another execution proceedings upon dismissal of the earlier one due to the latches and negligence of the complainant himself. In the process, it is evident from the records of this case, more than a decade has passed by in the mean time.
Regard being had to the aforesaid delay and further latches and negligence of the complainant being writ large on the materials on record, we are of the view that this execution proceeding at this belated stage is not only vexatious but was filed only for the purpose of harassing the OPs. We are not inclined to allow the complainant to proceed with the execution of the order dated 24.12.99 as above passed in D.F. Case No.12 of 1998 at this stage. For the reasons as aforesaid we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. Hence the appeal is dismissed.
(S. Majumder) (Justice P.K. Samanta) MEMBER(L) PRESIDENT