State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. vs Netrapal on 5 April, 2022
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRADUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 132 / 2014
1. Uttarakhand Power Corporation Limited
through its Executive Engineer
Electricity Distribution Division (Rural)
Haridwar
2. Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division (Rural)
Uttarakhand Power Corporation Limited
Haridwar
...... Appellants / Opposite Party
Versus
Sh. Netrapal S/o Sh. Hardwari
R/o Village Brahmpuri Rawali Mahdood
P.S. Ranipur, Tehsil and District Haridwar
...... Respondent / Complainant
Smt. Shashi Yogeshwar, Learned Counsel for the Appellants
Sh. Pradeep Bartwal, Learned Counsel for Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.S. Tripathi, President
Mr. Udai Singh Tolia, Member-II
Dated: 05/04/2022
ORDER
(Per: Justice D.S. Tripathi, President):
This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 03.07.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haridwar (in short "The District Commission") in consumer complaint No. 461 of 2013; Sh. Netrapal Vs. Executive Engineer (Rural), Uttarakhand Power Corporation Limited, Haridwar, by which the consumer complaint was allowed ex-parte against the appellants and the appellants were directed to install the new electricity meter at the residence of respondent - complainant by removing old electricity meter. The appellants were also directed to issue electricity bill on the basis of electricity bill for the period from 25.08.2013 to 08.10.2013 and to set aside the 2 incorrect meter reading. The appellants were further directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- to respondent - complainant and in case the payment of the said sum is not possible, then the said amount shall be adjusted in the electricity bill of respondent - complainant.
2. The facts of the case, in brief, as stated in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant is having an electricity connection installed at his house and he has been regularly paying the electricity bills. However, an incorrect electricity bill was issued to him, regarding which complaint was made to the electricity department. It was further alleged that his electricity meter is not perfectly running. In the electricity bill for the period from 25.08.2013 to 08.10.2013, the meter reading was shown as "4855 units" and in the same bill, the current reading was depicted as "35000 units". A legal notice was issued to the electricity department on 19.10.2013, but the needful was not done. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the electricity department, consumer complaint was instituted before the District Commission.
3. The District Commission issued notice to the appellants, but the appellants did not turn up before the District Commission and, consequently, the District Commission per order dated 20.01.2014 proceeded the consumer complaint ex-parte against the appellants and allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned judgment and order dated 03.07.2014 in the above terms. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants have preferred the instant appeal.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the impugned judgment and order was passed ex-parte by the District Commission 3 and the appellants did not get opportunity to file the written statement to rebut the averments made in the consumer complaint. Her further submission is that the appeal should be allowed and the matter should be remanded back to the District Commission for decision afresh on merit, after providing proper opportunity of hearing to both the parties.
6. We find substance in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants. We find from record that impugned judgment and order has been passed by the District Commission ex-parte against the appellants. The appellants could not get opportunity to file written statement before the District Commission against the consumer complaint filed by respondent - complainant. It is settled principle of law that all the parties involved in the matter in question should get proper opportunity of being heard. It is further settled principle of law that substantial justice should prevail over technical one.
7. We have noticed that the appellants could not file written statement before the District Commission and the appellants did not get opportunity for adducing evidence on affidavit. Appellants were deprived from getting opportunity of hearing. In the case of Topline Shoes Ltd. Vs. Corporation Bank reported in II (2002) CPJ 7 (SC), Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that "it 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."
8. Thus, we are of the view that the consumer complaint should be decided on its merit, after providing opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Therefore, we set aside the impugned judgment and order 4 dated 03.07.2014 passed by the District Commission, Haridwar, subject to the payment of costs of Rs. 2,000/-, which shall be paid by the appellants to respondent - complainant and remand back the matter to the District Commission to decide the consumer complaint on its merit. The appellants shall file the written statement before the District Commission on or before the date fixed for appearance of the parties before the District Commission and thereafter the District Commission shall afford a reasonable opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence in support of their case. The District Commission shall take all sort of endeavour to decide the consumer complaint as early as possible.
9. For the reasons aforesaid, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed, on payment of costs of Rs. 2,000/- by the appellants to the respondent. Impugned judgment and order dated 03.07.2014 passed by the District Commission is set aside. The parties are directed to appear before the District Commission on 05.05.2022. It is made clear that the costs of Rs. 2,000/- shall be paid by the appellants to the respondent before the District Commission prior to filing the written statement. In case the costs is not paid by the appellants to the respondent, the written statement of the appellants shall not be accepted on record. The District Commission shall provide proper opportunity of hearing to both the parties and proceed to decide the consumer complaint expeditiously according to law. The amount deposited by the appellants with this Commission, be released in their favour. Copy of the order be sent to the District Commission forthwith.
(U.S. TOLIA) (JUSTICE D.S. TRIPATHI)
Member-II President
K