Maharashtra State Electricity Board vs VINAYAKRAO L.TAYADE

RESPONDENT is absent, although today''s date was intimated.

ALTHOUGH the appellant, who is the original opposite party has filed the appeal herein, considering the nature of orders impugned therein, which is by way of interim relief, the appeal will not be an appropriate procedure. We, therefore, allow the appellant to convert this appeal into revision application and proceed to dispose of treating the same as revision application. We have heard the learned Advocate for the revisional petitioner, who is Executive Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity Board, the original opposite party in C/257/97, 72/98 and 317/98.

At the outset, we are constrained to note rather strange that curious manner in which the District Forum, Amravati has proceeded to process, the so-called dispute of the complainant in the aforesaid 3 complaints. We are unable to comprehend as to under what provisions of Law or the Rules, the District Forum, functioning under the provisions of C.P. Act, 1986 could pass orders, in successive complaints mentioned above to the same complainant/respondent herein.

WHAT we gathered from the record and proceedings available in this revision petition and on hearing the learned Advocate for the appellant that the dispute of the complainant relates to billings by the appellant in respect of his electricity consumption supplied by the appellants. From the impugned orders, which have been passed by the said District Forum in the respective complaints, 1st being dated 4.11.1997, 2nd being dated 10.3.1998, and 3rd being dated 2.11.1998 that the same are in a nature of interim orders and are on adhoc basis, we do not find final adjudication as such and the District Forum has proceeded to give directions after directions to the petitioner in successive complaints filed by the complainant. The orders mentioned hereinabove are perfunctory and do not demonstrate application of mind of the District Forum, which is must, since such Forum is functioning under the statute, viz., Consumer Protection Act and has to adopt and modulate its proceedings maintaining some sort of judicial discipline required in that respect. Indeed, it is most unfortunate that the said District Forum has failed to take notice of such important part of the duty and responsibility attached to the post. We strongly deprecate such sort of working and manner of dealing with the proceedings, which are in par with judicial proceedings by the District Forum which exercises judicial power and authority under the statute.

IN this respect, we may only refer to the decision of this Commission in the case of Mr. R.A. Thorat v. Mr. Govindan Gopinathan, in A/2700/98, wherein we have given various directions and guidelines as to how the Consumer FORA established under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act shall modulate their working. This is so, because, in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Fair Air Engineers Ltd. & Ors. v. N.K. Modi, reported in III (1996) CPJ 1 (SC)=(1999) 6 Supreme Court Cases 385, it has been held by the Apex Court that Consumer FORA established under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 have all trappings of Civil Court and they exercise judicial power and authority. IN view of the said judgment of the Apex Court, it is necessary that Consumer FORA while discharging their functions and duties should ensure to observe some sort of judicial discipline while processing complaints of the nature as made in this matter. As stated earlier all the 3 orders mentioned herein above passed in 3 different complaints are in a nature of interim orders and no final decisions were given in the main complaints. Virtually the interim orders have decided the relief claimed in the main complaint. This has been done without consideration of the case of the opposite party/appellant herein. Such course is not at all permissible. Another important fact that the said District Forum has lost sight of is that the Consumer FORA functioning under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 have no power and jurisdiction to issue and/or pass interim orders. Notwithstanding the Consumer Forum has proceeded to do what is not permissible under the statute. This is a matter of regret that even elementary norms of justice process have not been observed in the cases in hand.

IN the circumstances, (i) We set aside all the 3 orders being dated 4.11.1997 passed in C/257/97, dated 10.3.1998 passed in C/72/98 and dated 2.11.1998 passed in C/317/98. (ii) We further direct that the said Forum shall process the complaints and dispose off the same by following provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and Rules made thereunder by giving appropriate opportunities to the concerned parties. (iii) With this, the revision petition herein stands disposed off. (iv) The petitioner''s Advocate shall furnish the certified copy of this order to the District Forum, Amravati and the said District Forum shall proceed to dispose off all the 3 complaints on merits expeditiously in any event within 3 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order herein. (v) No order as to cost. The Registrar of this Commission is directed to furnish the copies of this order to Hon''ble President as also the other 2 Members of the District Forum, Amravati. Orders set aside.