Challenge in these proceedings is to the order dated 11.03.2011 passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in first appeal No. 494 of 2010.  The appeal before the State Commission was filed against an order dated 5.8.2010 passed by the District Consumer Forum in execution case No. 3 of 2002 thereby dismissing the execution application. 

The case has a somewhat checkered history.  The petitioner had filed a complaint against the opposite party-BSNL alleging deficiency in service on their part in disconnection of his telephone and its restoration, which complaint was decided by the District Consumer Forum vide order dated 24.12.1999 with the following directions to the opposite party-BSNL:-

“The petitioner do get an order for recovery for a sum of Rs.210/- along with interest @18% thereon against the O.Ps.  The petitioner do get an order for restoration of his telephone connection (bearing No. 52288) at Raiganj against the O.Ps.  The petitioner also do get an order for recovery of

-3-

compensation @Rs.300/- per day from 27.03.1997 till restoration of his telephone connection.

The O.Ps. are directed to restore the telephone connection of the petitioner and to refund Rs.210/- along with compensation within 15 days from the date of passing the final order.”

2.          Aggrieved by the said order, BSNL filed an appeal bearing No. 51 of 2000 titled as Union of India & Anr. vs. Shri Lakhanlal Sharma, which appeal was dismissed as withdrawn pursuant to a payer made by learned counsel for the appellant-BSNL for withdrawal of the appeal meaning thereby the order dated 24.12.1999 passed by the District Consumer Forum had attained finality.  Since the telephone connection was not restored immediately or within the a reasonable period, the decree holder filed an execution application No. 12 of 2000 seeking enforcement of the order passed by the District Consumer Forum as far back as on 24.12.1999.  Unfortunately, the said execution application was dismissed in default and thereafter the complainant-decree holder filed another execution application No. 14 of 2002 which too was dismissed for non-prosecution on 4.4.2002.  The telephone connection was still not restored and was restored only on 8.4.2002.  The complainant filed another execution application No. 3 of 2002 before the concerned District Consumer

-4-

Forum seeking enforcement of the order dated 24.12.1999 in full i.e. for payment of the amount in terms of the order i.e. @300/- per day for the period from 27.03.1997 till the date of restoration i.e. 8.4.2002, which application was dismissed by the District Consumer Forum vide order dated 5.8.2010 by observing as under:-

“In common sense, three execution cases can not be initiated in respect of the same order.  Moreover, in case of dismissal of one case on the ground of default, aggrieved party can file petition for restoration if permitted by law.  In absence of such provision, one revision is the remedy.  But decree-holder having not taking the alternate recourse has filed three execution petitions one after another making administration of justice a mockery.  We believe that the decree-holder has misused the right that the law has guaranteed him.  Having regard to all these circumstances we finally hold the present execution case (03/2002) is liable to be dismissed.

  So, it is ordered.

Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant filed appeal before the State Commission.  The State Commission dismissed the appeal by observing as under:-

“In the case in hand it is abundantly clear that even upon restoration of the complainant’s telephone connection by the OPs, the complainant kept on filing one after another execution proceedings upon

-5-

dismissal of the earlier one due to the latches and negligence of the complainant himself.  In the process, it is evident from the records of this case, more than a decade has passed by in the meantime.

Regard being had to the aforesaid delay and further latches and negligence of the complainant being writ large on the materials on record, we are of the view that this execution proceeding at this belated stage is not only vexatious but was filed only for the purpose of harassing the OPs.  We are not inclined to allow the complainant to proceed with the execution of the order dated 24.12.99 as above passed in D.F. case No. 12 of 1998 at this stage.  For the reasons as aforesaid, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.  Hence the appeal is dismissed.

We have heard Mr. Sanjoy Kr. Ghosh, learned counsel for the petitioner and have considered his submissions but had not the advantage of hearing the say of the respondents as they remain unrepresented on record despite due service of notice on them quite sometime back.   Mr. Amit Dubey, advocate appears and claims that he has instructions to appear from the side of the respondent-BSNL and seeks time to file his power of attorney as also to make his submissions.  We decline the prayer in the given facts and circumstances of the case that notice on the revision petition was served on the respondents several months back and what is proposed to be done now should have been done much earlier if the respondent was really serious to defend the present proceedings. 

-6-

This case raises a question of law and the jurisdiction of the various consumer fora to enforce the orders passed by them in different consumer cases.  The question is as to whether once the order passed by consumer fora had attained finality, can the executing court go beyond the said order and dismiss the execution and refuse to enforce the direction given in the order, howsoever, harsh they may be, on the ground that the complainant is filing these execution proceedings only to harass the respondent-BSNL once the telephone connection was restored.  We must at once hold that such stand is not in consonance with the aims and objects with which the Consumer Protection Act was enacted.  In the case in hand, BSNL has taken almost about 3 years to restore the telephone connection which was ordered as far back as on 24.12.1999 with the clear stipulation that it will carry penalty of Rs.300/- per day w.e.f. 27.03.1997 till the date of its restoration.  BSNL ought to have taken action for implementation of said order and should have restored the telephone connection within few days time from the date of order i.e. 24.12.1999.  What were the reasons why despite facing such consequential order, they did not restore the telephone connection

-7-

uptil i.e. 8.04.2002 is not easy to understand.  In any case, the compensation granted to the complainant which though sought to be challenged but it will be deemed to have been accepted by BSNL by getting their appeal dismissed as withdrawn.  In our view, the complainant who was given redressal of his grievance by making an order, cannot be left in lurch by not implementing the said order on the ground that the execution filed by him is nothing except a device to harass the respondent-BSNL.  It would amount to going beyond the order/decree passed by forum established under law.  Such a course is impermissible.  There appears to be no bar to file subsequent execution proceedings until the order passed by the fora is fully enforced.

In our view, the fora below have committed grave error of jurisdiction in dismissing the execution application No. 3 of 2002 as it is shown that the directions given by the District Consumer Forum vide order dated 24.12.1999, have not been fully realized on the ground so far.  We are, therefore, of the opinion that the orders passed by the fora below are legally unsustainable and should be set aside.

-8-

In view of the above, we direct the concerned District Consumer Forum to proceed with the execution application No. 3 of 2002 and to take the same to its logical conclusion so as to ensure the compliance of the order dated 24.12.1999.  It would be open for the highest authority of the BSNL/functionary of the BSNL to institute an inquiry and fix the responsibility on the concerned officer(s), who were responsible for not restoring the telephone connection of the complainant between the period from 27.03.1997 to 8.04.2002 and depending upon the outcome of the said inquiry, to take further action to recover the amount, which may be paid to the complainant from the salary of the concerned officer(s).  A copy of this order shall be forwarded to the Chairman, BSNL for his information and necessary action.  The parties are directed to appear before the concerned District Consumer Forum on 21.09.2011 for receiving further directions in the matter.  The revision petition stands disposed of in the above terms.