State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Govindrao Nagpure vs Junior Engineer & Others on 20 December, 2013
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G).
Appeal No.245/2009
Instituted on : 15.05.2009
Govindrao Nagpure, S/o Late Gajanand Rao Nagpure,
R/o : Village Bindravan,
Arakshi Kendra & Tehsil Bagbahra,
District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Appellant
Vs.
1. Junior Engineer, Rural Electricity Board,
Komakhan, Tehsil Bagbahra, Dist.Mahasamund (C.G.)
2. Superintending Engineer,
Chhattisgarh Electricity Board,
Mahasamund Dist. Mahasamund (C.G.).
3. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board,
Danganiya, Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents
PRESENT :
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MISS HEENA THAKKAR, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES :
Shri Pralay Thitte, for appellant.
Shri R.K. Bhawnani, for respondents.
ORDER
DATED : 20/12/2013 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT. This appeal is directed against the order dated 26.04.2008 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mahasamund (C.G.) (henceforth called "District Forum" for short) in Complaint Case No.07/2007. By the impugned order, the complaint filed by the complainant / appellant, has been dismissed by the District Forum.
// 2 //
2. The case of the complainant / appellant before the District Forum, was that about 23 acres of land at Village Bindravan, Tehsil Bagbahra, District Mahasamund was recorded in the revenue record in the ownership and possession of the complainant / appellant. The complainant / appellant obtained electric connection from the OPs/respondents and installed motor pumps 4 nos. for irrigation of above land and complainant/appellant incurred expenditure near about Rs.12,400/- for fitting of electric connection. The complainant / appellant deposited electric charges of Rs.956/- for per motor pump and he obtained permanent connection from the OPs/respondents. On 05.04.2005, the employees of the OPs/respondents came to the land of the complainant/appellant and inspected the land and disconnected the electric connection and seized the materials illegally. They seized the materials valuing Rs. 17,000/- and also took cut out cable wire and other materials along with them and kept the same unautorizedly and illegally with them. Due to illegal act of the employees of the OPs/respondents, the complainant / appellant could not irrigate his land and suffered heavy loss to the tune of Rs.4,96,400/- as mentioned by him in paragraph no. 4 of the complaint. Thus, OPs/respondents committed unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service. The complainant/appellant filed complaint case before the District Forum. The complaint of the complainant/appellant has been dismissed by the learned District Forum, by the impugned order. Hence this appeal.
// 3 //
3. OPs/respondents filed their written version before the District Forum without signature of authorized officer of the OPs/respondents. As the written version was not signed by the authorized officer of the OPs/respondent, therefore, it was not taken into consideration by the learned District Forum.
4. Learned District Forum, after appreciation of the materials available before it, dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant/appellant . The complainant/appellant preferred appeal before this Commission bearing Appeal No.245/2009, which was dismissed by this Commission vide order dated 26.11.2009 on the ground of barred by limitation. The complainant/appellant filed Revision Petition bearing No.635 of 2010 before Hon'ble National Commission (Govidrao Nagpure Vs. Junior Engineer, Rural Electricity Board & Ors.). The said revision petition filed by the complainant/appellant was allowed by Hon'ble National Commission and the case was remitted back to this Commission vide order dated 27.09.2012 for disposal of the appeal in accordance with law.
5. The OPs/respondents have filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC along with written version and affidavit of Shri R.K. Banchore, Executive Engineer (O & M), C.G. State Power Distribution Co. Ltd. Division Mahasamund (C.G.).
// 4 //
6. Shri Pralay Thitte, learned counsel for the complainant/appellant argued that the complainant/appellant obtained permanent electric connection for motor pumps 4 nos. and deposited the prescribed charges Rs.956/- for each motor pumps and he was using the electric connection for irrigation of his land. He had obtained valid electric connection , but on 05.04.2005, the employees of the OPs/respondents illegally disconnected the electric connection and took material from the field of the complainant/appellant illegally, therefore, the complainant/appellant had deprived to irrigate his land and suffered heavy loss. He further argued that learned District Forum has erroneously held that the electric connection obtained by the complainant/appellant was a temporary connection. The complainant/appellant paid the amount to the OPs/respondents for permanent connection but the employees of the OPs/respondents have illegally disconnected the connection. The impugned order passed by the learned District Forum was not in right perspective., therefore, the order passed by the District Forum is erroneous. He further argued that the written version filed by the OPs/respondents was not signed by any authorized officer of the OPs/respondents, therefore, the written version of the OPs/respondents was not taken into consideration by the District Forum, so the pleading of the complainant/appellant was unrebutted and it was accepted as it is, // 5 // therefore, he prayed that the appeal of the complainant / appellant be allowed and order passed by learned District Forum be set aside.
7. Shri R.K. Bhawnani, learned counsel for the OPs/respondents submitted that it is true that the written version filed by the OPs/respondents was not bearing signature of the authorized officer of the OPs/respondents and written version was bearing signature of the counsel for the OPs/respondents only. The mistake was bonafide and curable even at the appellate stage. If the written version of the OPs/respondents was not taken into consideration by the District Forum, the OPs/respondents suffered material injustice , therefore it is proper to remit back the case to District Forum for curing the mistake of not signing the written version by the authorized officer of the OPs/respondents. Merely not signing the written version by the authorized officer of the OPs/respondents, the defence of the OPs/respondents was not thrown out as a whole, therefore, he prayed that the case be sent back to the District Forum for fresh adjudication and for curing mistake occurred on the part of the OPs/respondents.
8. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties at length and have also perused the record of the District Forum and documents annexed with and also record of the instant appeal.
9. Counsel for the complainant/appellant submitted that the OPs/respondents had filed reply before the District Forum, but // 6 // written version does not bear signature of authorized officer of the OPs/respondents, therefore, the written version was not taken into consideration by the District Forum for want of signature of the authorized officer of the OPs, so, the allegation made by the complainant / appellant was not rebutted by the OPs. Therefore, the allegation made by the complainant is acceptable and learned District Forum erred in not allowing the complaint of the complainant.
10. It is not disputed that the appellant / complainant used electric connection and the appellant / complainant has filed bills of Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board 4 nos. In all the bills, it is mentioned that the appellant has deposited Rs.956/- for charges. Looking to the above document, it appears that the appellant obtained electric connection from the OPs and he paid the amount of bills to the OPs, therefore, the appellant comes within purview of the consumer. OP is service provider and appellant is a consumer, therefore, the District Forum has jurisdiction to try the case.
11. Looking to the record of the instant appeal, it appears that the appellant / complainant had filed appeal before this Commission and the appeal was dismissed by this Commission on the ground of barred by limitation. Appellant / complainant preferred Revision Petition bearing No.635 of 2010 before Hon'ble National Commission and vide order dated 27.09.2012, the case was remitted back to this Commission // 7 // and Hon'ble National Commission directing this Commission to dispose of this appeal in accordance with law on merits.
12. We have perused the record of the District Forum. The written version of respondents/OPs was annexed with. The said written version bears only signature of the counsel for the OPs / respondents and signature of the authorized officer of the OPs / respondents was not present and without signing, the written version was filed before the District Forum.
Order VI Rule 14 & 15 of CPC read as under:
14. Pleading to be signed.- Every pleading shall be signed by the party and his pleader (if any): Provided that where a party pleading is, by reason of absence or for other good cause, unable to sign the pleading, it may be signed by any person duly authorized by him to sign the same or to sue or defend on his behalf.
Order VI Rule 15
15. Verification of pleadings.- (1) Save as otherwise provided by any law for the time being in force, every pleading shall be varied at the foot by the party or by one of the parties pleading or by some other person proved to the satisfaction of the Court to be acquainted with the facts of the case.
(2) The person verifying shall specify, by reference to the numbered paragraphs of the pleading, what he verifies of his own knowledge and what he verifies upon information received and believed to be true.
// 8 // (3) The verification shall be signed by the person making it and shall state the date on which and the place at which it was signed. Looking to the provisions under Order VI Rule 14 & 15, signature in the complaint or written statement, is merely matter of procedure and any defect therein is remediable at any stage of litigation, even in the Appellate Court, the reason being that the omission to sign or verify is not such a defect as can affect the merits of the case and can be remedied under Section 99 of CPC.
13. Learned District Forum has held that the OPs have filed written version, but without signing it, written version is inconsequential and proceeded ex-parte against the OPs / respondents.
14. OPs/ respondents filed written version before the District Forum without signature of authorized officer, but written version bears signature of counsel of the OPs/respondents. Not signing written statement by authorized officer, did not affect the merits of the case and on the basis of non-signing the written statement, OPs cannot be deprived from their right. The respondents/OPs filed written version along with application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. Looking to the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC and written version annexed with said application, it is fit case to remit back to the District forum for curing lacuna of non-signing written version.
// 9 //
15. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order passed by learned District Forum, is hereby set aside and the case is remanded back to the District Forum with direction to the District Forum to provide an opportunity to the respondents / OPs to sign written version and thereafter to provide opportunity to both parties for leading their documentary evidence and thereafter hearing of both parties and to decide the matter afresh on its own merits. Parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on 10.01.2014. Office is directed to send back the record of the District Forum, Mahasamund (C.G.) immediately. No order as to cost of this appeal.
(Justice R.S. Sharma) (Ms. Heena Thakkar)
President Member
/12/2013 /12/2013