State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sri Pinaki Das vs The Station Manager on 20 February, 2013
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal BHABANI BHAVAN (GROUND FLOOR) 31, BELVEDERE ROAD, ALIPORE KOLKATA 700 027 SC.CASE NO. : FA/408/11 (Arisen out of Order Dated 18/08/2011 in Case No. 110/2011 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum North 24 Parganas, Barasat) DATE OF FILING : 19.09.11 DATE OF FINAL ORDER: 20.02.13 APPELLANTS/COMPLAINANTS : Sri Pinaki Das S/o Late Sailendra Nath Das 71,Banglo, Sardar Bazar, P.O.- Manirampur, P.S- Barrackpore, District- North 24 Parganas, West Bengal. RESPONDENTS/O.P.S : 1. The Station Manager Barrackpore Group Electric Supply West Bengal State Electricity Board (W.B.S.E.B) Now known as West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. (W.B.S.E.D.C.L) 99, Orderly Bazar, P.S.- Bararckpore, Kolkata- 700 120, P.S- Tigarah, District- North 24 Parganas. 2. Sri Kiriti Mazumdar S/o Late Krishna Mohan Majumder 3. Anusri Mazumdar W/o Sri Kiriti Mazumder, Both are residing at- Maduban Apartment, Flat No. D-2, Second Floor, 3/3 S.N. Banerjee Road, Chiriamore, P.O-Barrackpore, P.S.- Titagarh, District- North 24 Parganas, Pin- 700120, West Bengal. 4. Smt. Mahamaya Sadhukhan W/O late Jaganath Sadhukhan 3 No. S.N. Banerjee Road, Chiriamore, P.O.- Barrackpore, P.S. Titagarh, District- North 24 Parganas, Pin-700120, W.B. BEFORE : MEMBER : MR. D.BHATTACHARYA MEMBER : MR. J.BAG FOR THE PETITIONER/APPELLANT: Ms. Koyeli Mukhopadhyay, Mr. Tarun Jyoti Banerjee.Ld. Advocates. FOR THE RESPONDENT / O.P.S.: Mr. Aloke Mukhopadhyay., Advocate. Mr. Srijan Nayak, Advocate. Mr. S. Chatterjee. Advocate. : O R D E R :
Mr. J.Bag, Ld. Member The present appeal is directed against the Order dated 18.08.2011 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North 24 Parganas in their C.C. Case No. 110/2011 whereby the Ld. Forum below allowed a complaint on contest against O.P. No.1 and ex parte against O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 in part with the direction upon O.P. No.1 to arrange for new electric connection and to install new electric meter in the premises of the Complainant with the help of the local Police, if necessary.
The complaint case, in brief, was as follows:
The Complainant being a consumer under the O.Ps , such as O.P. No.1 (WBSEDCL) being the service provider of electric energy, O.P. No.2 being the promoter/developer and O.P. No.3 land owner of the property where the Complainant purchased a flat. The Complainant duly filled up a form on 09.11.2010 and applied for having electric connection from O.P. No.1 in his flat . O.P. No.1 issued quotation to implement the installation of the desired electric connection in favour of the Complainant and requested the Complainant to pay Rs.2800/- only in the HSC charges together with Rs.3402/- only towards security deposit and Rs.200/- only as E/M account. The Complainant made payment in full. O.P. No.1, thereafter, sent his staff for inspection of the spot for giving effect to the service connection . O.P. Nos. 2 & 3 objected vehemently to such installation, as a result of which the staff of O.P. No.1 left the spot without installing the electric meter and effecting any connection. The Complainant lodged a general diary with the local Titagarh P.S. vide G.D.E. No. 563 dated 10.04.2011. The Complainant contacted O.P. No.1 on several occasions and made correspondences for effecting the desired electric connection but to no avail. He then preferred to file a consumer complaint case with prayer for directions upon O.P. No.1 to effect the installation of electric meter and service connection, and also for direction upon O.P. No.1 to pay Rs.75,000/- towards compensation and cost of litigation.
The complaint was contested by O.P. No.1 by filing written version denying and disputing all material allegations as made out in the petition of complaint stating therein inter alia that the said O.P. had inspected the premises and after completion of all formalities they were ready to effect the desired service connection but the developer/O.P-2/ Appellant and his main agent restrained the men of O.P. No.1 from installation of service connection. O.P. No.1 further submitted that the Complainant had rather done nothing towards smooth installation of the electric meter in their premises . Accordingly, they denied any deficiency on their part.
O.P. No. 2 , as recorded by Ld. Forum below, appeared but took no steps and as such the case was heard ex parte against him, while O.P. No. 3 neither appeared nor contested the case and accordingly the case was heard ex parte against her.
Ld. Forum below after having considered the complaint and on perusal of material facts on record observed that it was for the resistance of O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 that delay in providing service connection in the premises of the Complainant was caused . Accordingly, O.P/Respondent No.1 was directed to arrange for new electric connection ,if necessary ,with police help.
The Appellant being O.P. No.2 in the original complaint was aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned order and preferred to file the present appeal with certain grounds which are cited against the Ld. Forum below.
It has been the main contention of the Appellant that he could not file written version as he was not provided with the annexure to the original complaint and that as he prayed for time for filing written version upon receipt of such annexure and though such prayer was allowed by the Ld. Forum below which is recorded in their order dated 06.07.2011, Ld. Forum below passed the final order without actually hearing his Ld. Advocate on the schedule date i.e., 12.08.2011.
We have gone through the appeal together with the impugned judgment, relevant extracts from order sheets pertaining to the proceedings of the complaint matter, petition of complaint and other documents placed on record. BNA has not been filed by either party. Ld. Advocates appearing for both parties have been heard. LCR being called for has been received and consulted.
Ld. Advocate appearing for the Appellant stated that on 28.07.2011 time was prayed for filing of written version and time was granted fixing 12.08.2011. On 12.08.2011 Ld. Forum, as shown in their order sheet, heard both parties in full but in the final order pronounced on 18.08.2011 it has been recorded that the case was allowed ex parte against O.P. Nos. 2 and 3. Ld. Advocate pointed out that the order dated 18.08.2011 was signed by two members in the absence of the Ld. President of the Forum, though from the certified copy of the order obtained on 17.04.2012 it is found that order No.8 dated 18.08.2011 has been signed by two members as well as by the Ld. President of the Forum.
It appears from LCR that the O.P. Nos. 2 & 3 prayed for time for filing written version which was allowed on 08.06.2011. Prayer for further time for filing written version was again allowed on 28.07.2011. On 12.08.2011 both sides are recorded to have been heard in full without any mention about the written version of O.P. No.2/Appellant and O.P. No.3/Respondent No. 4 and thereafter judgment was processed and finally pronounced on 18.8.2011. From LCR it appears that though both sides were recorded to have been heard in full on 12.08.2011 order has been passed without any reflection in that regard and ex parte orders have been passed against O.P. Nos. 2 and 3. Such recorded statement by the Ld. Forum below appears to be contradictory and confusing. Further, while from the original order sheets it appears that Order No.6 dated 12.08.2011 was signed by two Honble Members but there appears a distinct sign of erasing some writing, probably , the signature of the Ld. President with whitener and Order No. 8 dated 18.08.2011 was signed in the original order sheet by all three members including the Ld. President of the Forum though the certified copy of the judgment/order showed that the same was signed by two members only.
We have no hesitation to hold that Ld. Forum below without actually hearing both sides on 12.08.11 recorded in the order sheet as Heard both sides in full, though there is no reflection whatsoever of the submissions of the O.P.s in the impugned judgment. The impugned judgment suffers from lack of transparency and contains inconsistent recordings. The Appellant was also not given opportunity to file written version on their being supplied with the documents by the Complainant /Respondent No.1 as had been prayed forbefore the Ld. Forum below. .
In the above position we consider it appropriate that the appeal matter should be sent back on remand to the trial Forum for fresh hearing after giving the Appellant an opportunity to file written version on their being supplied with the documents by the Complainant/Respondent No.1 as had been prayed for.
Hence, Ordered that the appeal be and the same is allowed on contest without, however, any cost. The impugned order is set aside and the case is sent back on remand to the trial Forum for fresh hearing after giving an opportunity to the Appellant/O.Ps. 2 and 3 for submission of written version.
Let LCR be returned to the Ld. Forum below.
MR. J.BAG MR. D.BHATTACHARYA MEMBER MEMBER