State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Soubhagya Sundar Mahi And Others. vs Manager, Kendrapara Electrical on 8 August, 2006
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:ORISSA:CUTTACK STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:ORISSA: CUTTACK MISC. CASE NO. 699 OF 2006 (Arising out of Revision Petition No.22 of 2006) Soubhagya Sundar Mahi and others. Petitioners. -Versus- Manager, Kendrapara Electrical Division No.1 and others. Opp. Parties For the Petitioners : M/s. B.K. Nayak & Assoc. For the Opp.parties : M/s. B.B. Pattnaik & Assoc. PRESENT : THE HONBLE SMT. BASANTI DEVI, MEMBER A N D SHRI SUBASH MAHTAB, MEMBER. O R D E R
DATE: -
08TH AUGUST, 2006.
This Misc.
Case has been filed by the complainants / opposite parties against the opposite parties / petitioners in Revision Petition No.22 of 2006 pending before this Commission to vacate the orders dated 07.04.2006 of interim stay of the further proceeding in C.D. Case No.34 of 2005 pending before the District Forum, Kendrapara in absence of the complainants / opposite parties.
2. The facts of the case of the complainants / opposite parties, who are the petitioners in this Misc. Case, are that the opposite parties / petitioners wanted to put certain interrogatories to these petitioners in C.D. Case No.34 of 2005. But, vide orders dated 25.02.2006, the District Forum disallowed such prayer of the opposite parties / petitioners on the ground that no specific provision in the Consumer Protection Act in brief, C.P. Act and Consumer Regulation, 2005 are there to allow interrogatories. Challenging this orders, the opposite parties of said C.D. case have filed aforesaid Revision Petition No.22 of 2006 where ex-parte ad-interim orders of stay of further proceeding in the C.D. Case No.34 of 2005 has been passed on 07.04.2006 by this Commission. But this revision has been filed to delay the proceeding and to harass the petitioners by giving false and fabricated allegations against them. Therefore, the petitioners pray in this Misc. Case to vacate the aforesaid interim orders of stay and to give direction to the District Forum to dispose of the C.D. Case No.34 of 2005 within a stipulated period.
3. It is seen that the present Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 who are related toe ach other as minor son and father have filed the aforesaid C.D. Case against the petitioners of the Revision Petition (No.22 of 2006) to give new electric service connection to newly constructed premises of the present petitioners and to refund the amount received for said purpose from the minor son / complainant No.1 adopting unfair trade practice and have caused deficiency in service. But, the stand of the opposite parties of the C.D. case who have filed the Revision Petition is that, when the father / complainant No.2 was found illegally consuming electricity by hooking process, it was regularized by the opposite parties on the strength of Hooking Regularization Scheme by the CESCO (OSEB) at the spot on 30.12.1998. At that time, father / complainant No.2 had identified him as Nirmal Kumar Das, S/o. Dinabandhu Das of village- Jaikrushnapur, P.O- Indupur, Dist- Kendrapara.
But when he defaulted payment of arrear dues of electricity charges, electric supply was disconnected to his said premises. Thereafter, said Nirmal Kumar Das in a different name and identify as has been given in the cause title of the complaint petition in the C.D. Case, applied through his son / complainant No.1 of the C.D. case, for a fresh connection of electricity to the very same premises. Being aggrieved against the refusal of giving fresh electric connection to said premises by the opposite parties of the C.D. case, on the ground that arrear electric charge is over due, the complainants (the present petitioners) filed C.D. Case No.34 of 2005 for aforesaid relief. When the C.D. Case was at the stage of hearing, the opposite parties wanted to put certain interrogatories to the complainant which prayer was rejected by the District Forum vide orders dated 25.02.2006 as beyond the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora. The correctness of this orders has been challenged in R.P. No.22 of 2006. It is a matter to be decided in the R.P. No.22 of 2006 whether Consumer Fora is vested with a power to entertain interrogatories by the special statute i.e. the C.P. Act. Unless this aspect is decided, the further proceeding in the C.D. case cannot proceed. In this end of the view, the interim orders of stay still continue till final decision in the Revision Petition.
4. Therefore, we find no force in the Misc. Case. Hence the Misc. Case is dismissed on contest without cost.