C.E.S.C. Ltd. vs Ramji Singh

THIS revisional application under Section 17(b) of the Consumer Protection Act is directed against the order dated 6.1.94 passed by the Learned Calcutta District Forum in C.D.F. Case No. 2496 of 1993. In the said impugned order it has been directed by the Ld. C.D.F. to accept payment of Rs. 100/from the respondent against alleged dues to C.E.S.C. in addition to that it raised many disputes as stated in the revisional application and upon compliance of the requisites as demanded by the petitioner together with alleged arrear payments of Rs. 18,878,52 to be made by the petitioner in order to restore the supply line of the respondent. The main point of the revisional application is that the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forums have no power and competency to pass any interim order.

IN eariler occasions in S.C. Case No.171/Rev. of 1994 Petitioner/W.B.S.E.V. v. Rajendra Show and in S.C. Case No. 234/Rev. of 1994 between W.B.S.E.B. v. Suhasaria Oil and Rice Mills, we have expressed our clear opinion by majority views that the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forums have the power to pass an interim order to maintain the property in statusquo until the right of the parties are finally decided, considering the exigency in the matter, prima facie case balance of convenience and the apprehension of irreparable loss to be caused by either of the parties due to overt act on their part. IN the said case we discussed Morgan Stanley''s case elaborately and the principles laid down therein for granting the interim order or ex-parte interim order as has been bid down by Their Lordships of the Apex Court in said Morgan Stanley''s case. Had Their Lordships of the Hon''ble Supreme Court any intention to prohibit or prevent the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum to grant interim order or ex-parte interim order, Their Lodships would not have taken so much trouble to discuss the principles of granting interim order or exparte interim order at length in the said Morgan Stanley''s case. It is very much implied in the said Morgan Stanley''s case that the Hon''ble Supreme Court had never intended to prevent the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum to grant interim order or ex-parte interim order one the basis of principles laid down by Their Lordships in the said case. Their Lordships only in the facts and circumstances of the Morgan Stanley''s case and observing the conduct of the complainant disapproved the grant of interim order in that particular case when the dispute at all did not fall within scope and ambit of the Consumer Protection Act as discussed by Their Lordships therein and that grant of interim order also without consideration of balance of convenience. The Supreme Court only considered the four clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Section 14(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, while considering Morgan Stanley''s case. So to our views as we have also observed that the Morgan Stanley''s case did not prevent or prohibit the grant of interim or ex-parte interim order considering the prima facie case and balance of convenience and to save the party from perilous factor of irreparable injury which might come upon the party and that the in covenience likely to arise from withholding injunction will be greater which is likely to arise from granting it. IN the said context, we also discussed that the amended provisions of clause (e) of the Consumer Protection Act which came into force from 18th January, 1993 armed the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums with weapons to remove the defects and deficiency in service in question in any matter and Hon''ble Supreme Court had no occasion to consider that clause newly inserted in the Consumer Protection Act as it reveals from the Judement of Morgan Sanley''s case and that might have been due to failure on the part of the opposite party to bring into the notice of Hon''ble Supreme Court the said amended provisions of clause (e) of Section 14(1) of the Consumer Protection Act. In the case of Monorama Tewari v. State of Rajasthan reported in II (1992) CPJ 427 (NC) referred to by the petitioner, West Bengal State Electricity Board wherein the rario laid down by the Hon''ble National Commission is that the relief which cannot be granted under Section 14(1) of the Consumer Protection Act it cannot be granted by interlocutory order.

We also accept the said views and are of opinion that we can grant relief by interlocutory order where we have the power to grant final relief in any dispute, so that a proceeding does not become infructuous or it opens an outlet for multiferious proceedings. In this connection it was referred to a decision of a Constitutional Bench of the Hon''ble Supreme Court consisting of Lalit Mohan Sharma, M.M. Venkatachallah, J.S. Varma, K. Jaychandra Reddy and S.C. Agarwal (JJ), in the case of Kihota Hallohan v. Zachillua reported in AIR 1993 SC 412 where Their Lordships have held that the purpose of passing the interlocutory, order is to preserve in status-quo the rights of the parties, so the proceedings do not become infructuous by any unilateral overt acts by one side or the other during its pendency.

REFERENCE made to a Division Bench decision of Calcutta High Court consisting of N.K. Mitra & B. Panigrahi (JJ) as to the incompetency and powerlessness of Consumer Redressal Forums to grant any interim order has been countered by another two Division Bench Judgements of Calcutta High Court one decision in the case of Pratima Sari and Selection v. CM.C. in CO. No. 1059 of 1994 delivered by K.C. Agarwal C.J.& Suhas Ch. Sen J, and another decision in the case of Pradip Chatterjee vs W.B.S.E Board delivered by Mukul Gopal Mukherjee and Ashok Kr. Chakraborty J.J. wherein Their Lordships have upheld the grant of interim orders in the matters. We preferably accept the views of judgements of two Division Bench confirming the power to grant of interim order by the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum. In view of the foregoing discussions the decisions of Hon''ble National Commission cited by the petitioner have no application, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, particularly in view that the Hon''ble National Commission had no occasion to consider the power vested with the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum under new clause (e) of Section 14 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 amended upto date before passing said judgements. In view of the said different judgements of Supreme Court and High Court, if any decision is pronounced by National Commission on the issue of incompetency or powerlessness of the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forums those to be treated as obiter dictum having no binding effect on the course of action to be taken for granting interim or ex-parte interim order, considering the prima facie case and balance of convenience and also irreparable loss to be caused to either of the parties by their overt act in absence of any interim or ex-parte interim order during pendency of the proceeding

WE also discussed in our earlier cases that if the Appellate Forums under the Consumer Protection Act have the power and competency to grant interim or ex-parte interim order in the cases coming before it then the District Forums or original jurisdiction must have the same power to grant interim orders which is inherent discretionary power of the Judicial Authority. The Criminal Courts have also the power and competency and can grant interim and ad-interim order in the cases where exigency of situation so demands considering the prima facie case and a balance of convenience so warrants it by virtue of inherent discretionary power although in Criminal Code there is no such provision to grant interim or ad-interim order. We are of opinion that the grant of interim or ex-parte ad-interim order is entirely inherent discretionary power of Judicial Authority and the Judicial Authority cannot sit with its eyes closed where exigency of situation demands to protect the property in statusquo without waiting till the rights of the parties are decided finally, considering the prima facie case and balance of convenience. As the order of restoration has been granted by the Learned Calcutta District Forum as an interim relief does not warrant our intervention into the matter, in view that the grievances of the petitioner could be redressed in final adjudication of the dispute raised by both the parties.

WE, therefore, dismiss the revisional application filed by the petitioner/C.E.S.C. Ltd. without any cost and affirm the order dated 6.1.94 passed by the Learned Calcutta District Forun in C.D.F. Case No. 2496 of 1993 in view of suffering disconnection of electric line by the respondent causing extreme difficulty to the respondent for passing daily life without electricity. Petition dismissed.