SASANKA SEKHAR GHOSH vs GANESH PRASAD SHAW

-THIS is an appeal against the order dated 24.7.2003 passed by the South 24 Parganas District Consumer Forum in D.F. Case No. 215/03.

ON 10.1.2003 when the hearing of the main case was yet to commence, the Forum passed an interim order directing the O.P. No. 1 i.e., the CESC Ltd. to give electric connection in the tenanted premises of the complainant (the respondent in this appeal). ON 24.7.2003 the matter was again taken up by the Forum to ascertain how far its order had been complied with. The learned Advocate for the O.P. No. 1, the CESC Ltd. submitted that it was not being possible for his client to give the connection in favour of the complainant, because the meter-board position was not accessible to it and the O.P. No. 3, the landlord, was creating obstruction to the men of the CESC, when they were trying to give the line by not allowing their entry into the Meter Room. The learned Advocate for the O.P. No. 3-Sasanka Shekhar Ghosh, the present appellant, submitted before the Forum that his client being the owner of the house and having filed a civil suit which was still pending in the Civil Court against him for his eviction he would not allow the CESC men to enter into his Meter Room.

After hearing such submission the Forum observed that this was indicating that the line had been disconnected by the O.P. No. 3 and under such circumstances it was proper for the CESC and the complainant to remove the meter of the complainant from that room of the O.P. No. 3 and to instal it at a common place. The Forum then passed this order giving such direction to the CESC and giving them 15 days time for compliance and report.

SUBSEQUENTLY, on 22.8.2003 the Forum passed another order (the copy of which has been placed before us at the time of hearing) in continuation of the said impugned order thereby providing police help to the CESC men for implementing the order and appointing a Spl. Officer to oversee the activities of them. In this order the Forum has also spelt out the details of the procedure in accordance with which the execution of the order was to be effected including breaking open of the lock of the Meter Room. The learned Advocate of the appellant wonders how such orders could be passed by the Forum, being not the Executing Forum, only to give effect to its interim order which was passed before hearing of the main case and before adjudicating upon the points that fell for determination therein between the complainant and the O.P. No. 3 i.e. the Landlord. We cannot but keep in our mind the fact that a Consumer Forum unlike a Civil Court has to work within a limited frame. It cannot assume the jurisdiction of Civil Court and pass orders to "subserve the ends of natural justice" which can be passed under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code by a Civil Court alone.

THERE is no such enabling section under the Consumer Protection Act and the Consumer Forum cannot poke its nose and has to remain helpless where the phenomenon of deficiency of service is conspicuous by its absence, because deficiency of service is the sine qua non for giving jurisdiction to a Consumer Court. In the present case while passing the impugned interim order the Forum made it amply clear that the CESC had no fault or laches in the matter of providing the electric line to the complainant. No doubt, there has been no deficiency of service on its part. It was O.P. No. 3 who according to the Forum was standing in the way and not allowing the electric line to be given. Therefore, the Forum was to adjudge whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of this O.P. No. 3 or whether the O.P. No. 3, being the landlord had any contractual obligation to provide for such service of the complainant. Since in this case admittedly the O.P. No. 3 had filed civil suit against the complainant for eviction before the Civil Court on the ground that the complainant was not a tenant under him, it was also to be determined by the Forum whether in view of resistance put up by the O.P. No. 3 to the installation of Meter, the Forum had any jurisdiction to decide such a question or to pass such a direction upon the O.P. No. 3 or whether it should refer the parties to the Civil Court for having a decision on that question. The Forum without adjudicating on such issues between the complainant and the O.P. No. 3 on hearing could not under the law pass such an interim order or could not suo motu embark on putting into such interim order, however intense, might be the call of natural justice or humanitarianism. In this connection we also share the surprise expressed by Mr. Das, learned Advocate for the appellant at the fact that the complainant is not taking any step for claiming such a relief before the Civil Court where the civil suit as aforesaid is pending because that would be the most appropriate course of action. Therefore, in our considered view a finding of the Forum below on the points as indicated above is necessary and such finding can be arrived at by the Forum after hearing both sides and taking evidence if any, from the parties. Accordingly, it is ordered that the appeal be allowed on contest. The case be sent back on remand to the South 24 Parganas Distt. Forum for hearing and disposal on the line as indicated above. The impugned order be set aside. Appeal allowed.