WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD vs TEXDYE

THE order dated 6.8.1993 passed by the Ld. District Forum in C.D.F. Case No. 1778 of 1991 has been rectified by subsequent order dated 8.9.1993. In the said order dated 8.9.1993 the Ld. Calcutta District Forum directed the complainant who is respondent is this appeal to deposit Rs. 1,000/- to the appellant and to test the meter of the complainant/Opposite Party by C.E.I. upon deposit of the requisite fees in this regard and the C.E.I. to conclude its investigation within two months thereof and in the mean time the appellant who was Opposite Party in the complaint case was directed to maintain the electric line of complainant/respondent during the aforesaid adjudication of the dispute by C.E.I. By the subsequent order dated 8.9.1993, the Ld. District Forum modified and/or rectified the earlier order dated 6.8.1993 to the effect that the complainant/Opposite Party shall pay Rs. 20,000/- as an ad-hoc basis and the matter be referred to the C.E.I. for adjudication and he shall submit report within two months. THE appellant W.B.S.E.B. shall effect the conversion of the electric supply of the complainant from hi-tension to low tension immediately and shall raise bills from August, 1993 on the basis of such low-tension connection and the Opposite party shall not disconnect the electric line of the complainant/opposite party during the aforesaid period of adjudication.

THE crux of the contentions raised by the Appellant WBSEB that the Consumer Redressal Forum have no jurisdiction and/or competency to revise, modify and or review its own order, in view that there is no such provisions in the Consumer Protection Act, itself and also that the National Commission has been pleased to hold that the agency self up under the Consumer Protection Act cannot review its own order and judgment. Although the power of rectification and/ or modification or so to say the review of its order by the Consumer Redressal Forum is not provided in so many words under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act but the power to rectify and/or modify and/or review its order is the inherent jurisdiction of the judicial authority, as such the Consumer Redressal Forum being a judicial authority under the statute if it finds ex-facie that some material documents and/or evidence have not been considered due to failure on the part of the complainant to disclose those at the time of hearing for which the order passed in the matter suffers from infirmity and illegality causing thereby serious injustice and prejudice to the aggrieved party and subsequently those documents are discovered we do not find any bar to reconsider the order on the basis of such documents and/or evidence discovered subsequently and produce before the consumer Redressal Forum for the ends of justice. The main purpose of said modification and /or rectification is to subserve the principle of natural justice.

In the instant case, it is found that the complainant/Opposite Party use to pay of average Rs. 800/- per month as against his monthly electricity consumption. The dispute between the parties reveals that the impugned bills for June, 1990, August, 1990 and October to December, 1990 and onwards are highly inflated and the respondent has produced sufficient documents to justify his stands that during undisputed period his electricity consumption was within the range of Rs. 800/-. In view of that if the Ld. District Forum modifies its order directing the respondent to pay Rs. 20,000/- as an ad-hoc basic for the deputed bills subject to final adjudication by C.E.I. this would not prejudice the right of the appellant to the least. On the other hand it would cause serious prejudice to the respondent if he would have been directed to deposit Rs. 1,000/- on adhoc basis. The contention of the Appellant is that the National Commission in a number of cases have been pleased to hold that the agency set-up under the Consumer Protection Act cannot review its own order and judgment is distinguishable from mat of the rectification and /or modification of the order which is exfacie wrong, seriously the decision of the National Commission has been pronounced in a case which is completely different from the facts and circumstances of the present case as such the decisions, pronounced by the National Commission and referred to by the appellant are obiter dictum.

IN view of our aforesaid observation we dismiss the appeal on contest and affirm the order dated 8.9.1993 passed by Calcutta District Forum in C.D.F Case No. 1778/1991 upon rectification and/or modification of earlier order dated 6.8.1993. The parties will bear their respective cost.

I agree. Review under the statutory provisions of Section 114 of the Civil Procedure Code allows at the instance of an aggrieved party to re-consider a decree or order against which an appeal is allowed but not preferred or against which no appeal is allowed at all. This is further right to challenge a decree or order when a party is aggrieved by such a decree or order. This is a right created by statute and but for this right a decree or order is final. This special right has not been conferred on the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum under the C.P. Act, 1986 and hence a right of review cannot be exercised under the said Act. Under Section 24 of the Act an order which has not been modified by appeal is final. On principle a right of review of an otherwise final judgment cannot be exercised except by special sanction of law or otherwise there will be no end of judicial pronouncements in a Court. A Judge may have interpreted a legal provision in a particular way. He cannot be wiser at a later moment and proceed to interpret it in a different way. It would create chaos in the field of justice if such altercation of judgment are made. We, therefore, abide by the decision of the National Commission that a review of an order is not permissible under the C.P. Act.

BUT an error of judgment is not equivalent to an error due to extraneous cause. An order passed on legal principle but on a mistaken fact is thus justifiable to prevent a failure of justice. In such a case a review may be resorted to. Appeal dismissed.