AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This revision petition is directed against the order of the State Commission dated 09.06.2016 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the District Forum dated 23.04.2014 came to be dismissed.
The case of the complainant/respondent is that he applied for an electricity connection from the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.1,700/- followed by an additional deposit of Rs.200/-. The grievance of the complainant/respondent is that the electricity connection was not provided to him despite his having deposited the requisite charges.
The petitioner was proceeded ex-parte before the concerned District Forum which directed the petitioner to release the electricity connection to the complainant and also pay to him a daily penalty of Rs.500/- per day after one month from the said order till the connection was released. A sum of Rs.2,500/- was awarded as cost of litigation to the complainant/respondent.
The proceedings of the District Forum from the time complaint was listed for the first time till the date on which the complaint came to be decided, to the extent the said proceedings are relevant, read as under:
" 05.03.2014
Present Counsel for the complainant.
The office report has been perused.
Arguments have been heard. The complaint be registered. In compliance with the directions as contained in the letter dated 586-618 dated 29.05.2000 received from the Hon?ble State Commission Consumer Projection, Jaipur such kind of matters being filed against electricity department have to be presented before the concerned settlement committee for disposal, accordingly, the present case is also required to be referred to the Settlement Committee. Upon receipt of notice in the present case the respondent shall issue notice to the complainant to remain present in the next upcoming Settlement Committee. Upon receipt of such notice the complainant shall remain present before the Executive Engineer, J.D.V.V.N.L. Sri Ganga Nagar. During the said period in case the parties wanted to settle the matter they may do so. The settlement committee is hereby directed to forward the decision of the settlement committee in relation to the present case to this District Forum on the next date. The present case be put up before Settlement Committee. The matter is adjourned to 17.04.2014 waiting the response of the Settlement Committee and service of notice upon the respondent.
Sd/-
21.04.2014
Present: Lawyer for the complainant. Since 17.04.2014 has been declared holiday the matter has been taken up today. The A.D. pertaining to the respondent has been received back. The respondent has been called out again and again, however, vide service of notice none has present on behalf of respondent. The respondent was proceeded with ex-parte. The case is now adjourned for evidence of the complainant and for ex-parte final arguments. File be put up on 22.04.2014.
Sd/-
ORDER
22.04.2014
Present: Counsel for the complainant.
Ex-parte arguments have been heard. The affidavit available on the record has been perused. Case be now put up for orders on 23.04.2014.
Sd/-
ORDER
23.04.2014
Present: Counsel for the complainant.
The order has been dictated separately and announced."
It would thus be seen that the date on which the petitioner was served with the notice of the complaint is nowhere indicated in the proceedings recorded by the District Forum. Therefore, it cannot be known whether the statutory period of thirty days from the date of the service had expired or not, by 21.04.2014, when the petitioner was proceeded ex-parte. In fact, in the absence of the date of service of the notice, one cannot be sure as to whether the complaint itself was decided before or after expiry of thirty days from the date of service of the notice of the complaint upon the petitioner. For this reason alone, the orders passed by the fora below are liable to be set aside.
More importantly, the very first order passed by the District Forum would show that the said forum passed a substantive order in the complaint without even serving notice upon the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to refer the matter to the settlement committee, without even serving the notice of the complaint upon it. Such an order could not have been passed without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to file its written version to the complaint. This is yet another reason, for which the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.
For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned orders are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the District Forum to decide the complaint afresh on merit after considering the written version of the petitioner, alongwith supporting documents, if any, if filed within thirty days from today. The parties shall appear before the concerned District Forum on 15.03.2017. The complaint shall be decided afresh within three months of the parties appearing before the concerned District Forum. The fee of the Amicus Curiae be paid as per rules.