DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MALDA, MALDA MISC CASE NO.04/2008 ARISING OUT OF MALDA D.F.ORIGINAL CASE No.32/2008. Date of filing of the Case: Complainant/ O.Ps. of Case No.32/08 | Opposite Party/Petitioner of Case No.32/08 | 1. General Manager Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Malda Telephone Bhawan (Near S.B.I., Malda Branch) P.O. & Dist. Malda. | 1 | Md. Belal Hossain S/O. Late Mozu Sheikh Vill. Gayeshbari, (Kalapahar), P.O. Gayeshbari, P.S. Kaliachak, Dist. Malda. | 2. Account Officer (T/R) B.S.N.L., Malda , Telephone Bhawan (Near S.B.I., Malda Branch) P.O. & Dist. Malda. | | | 3. Sub-Divisional Officer B.S.B.LO., S.M., Pally, N.H. 34, P.O. & Dist. Malda. | | |
Present: | 1. | Shri A.K. Sinha, Member | 2. | Smt. Sumana Das, Member |
For the Petitioners: Sovan Dasgupta, Advocate. For the O.P: : None. Order No. 02 Dt. 26.08.2008 In the instant petition filed by petitioner No.1 (General Manager Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Malda Telephone Bhawan (Near S.B.I., Malda Branch), P.O. & Dist. Malda), petitioner No.2 (Account Officer (T/R) B.S.N.L., Malda, Telephone Bhawan (Near S.B.I., Malda, Branch) P.O. & Dist. Malda) and petitioner No.3 (Sub-Divisional Officer, B.S.B.LO., S.M., Pally, N.H. 34, P.O. & Dist. Malda.) submit that Malda D.F. Case No.32/2008 had been disposed of exparte on 30.06.2008 against them after being properly service of notices/summons. The copy of the order No.5 dt.30.06.2008 was also sent to petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 on 1.7.2008 through peon book and they also properly acknowledged the copies. Accordingly on 30.07.2008, the petitioners have filed this application to set aside the exparte order on the grounds that the notice was misplaced though received, the General Manager of B.S.N.L. was on leave, so appointment of panel advocate for the aforesaid case could not be done and owing to no intentional latches on the part of petitioners, the entire proceedings have been decreed exparte. Therefore, the present petitioners earnestly pray to set aside the exparte order and to provide opportunity to contest the case i.e. original D.F. Case No.32/2008. In the petition of complaint of Original D.F. Case No.32/2008 the complainant Md. Belal Hossain alleged that he decided to surrender the B.S.N.L. telephone connection bearing No.247413 and accordingly he cleared the upto date bills on 17.10.2006 by payment of Rs.687/-. He also deposited the telephone receiver, xerox copy of paid bills etc to petitioner No.3 with a prayer to return the deposited amount. On 15.1.2007 the petitioner No.2 had put a remark on the received copy of his prayer that line may be disconnected, dues may be adjusted from security deposit of Rs.1320/- and necessary closing account note may be sent to A.O. (TR) bill. After that Md. Belal Hossain visited the Divisional Office for several times but did not get back his security deposit rather he received a bill No.765 dt.8.4.2008 amounting Rs.2056/- against the not paid bills from 8.12.2006 to 8.2.2008 @Rs.257/- bimonthly. It is apparent from the record that Ext.1 to 5 supported the complainant’s statement and in absence of anything to the contrary, the Forum found it prudent to believe the testimony of P.W. – 1 found reasonable and accepted and the case accordingly was decreed exparte. Hd. Ld. lawyer for the petitioners in the Misc. Case No.4/2008 and considered. Considering the above view of the matter this Forum takes assistance the observation in Revision petition No.7 of 2006 in a case, Registrar ICFAI University and others VS Mr. Jasmine Kaur published in 2007 CTJ 1241(CP) (SCDRC) wherein the relevant portion of para 13 states that, “there is no provision in the Consumer Protection Act according to which Dist. Consumer Forum can set aside exparte order. The only remedy available to the petitioner was by way of filing appeal before the State Consumer Commission within requisite period of limitation.” It is also relevant to mention that the observation supra in para 14 that, “The Legislature has given powers to the National Consumer Commission to set aside its exparte order by adding Section 22-A vide amendment by Act62 of 2002 but such a power has not been given to the District Consumer Forum or State Commission.” The relevant portion of para 15 also states that, “It has been observed by Hon’ble Apex Court in New India Assurance Company VS R. Srinivasan 2000 CTJ 161 (SC)(CP)=2000-SCC-3-242 that the provisions of order 9, Rule 9 CPC have not been made applicable to the proceedings under Consumer Protection Act. This Forum also takes assistance of Malda D.F. Misc. Case No.04/2008 wherein exparte order was not set aside as per Sec.22A of C.P. Act. In view of the above discussion, this Forum, is of the opinion that the application for setting aside exparte order filed by B.S.N.L. is not maintainable. Hence, ordered that Malda D.F. Misc. Case No.04/2008 is disposed of with no order as to cost. Let a copy of this order be given both parties free of cost at once. Sd/- Sd/- Sumana Das A. K. Sinha Member Member D.C.D.R.F., Malda D.C.D.R.F., Malda | 
