Date of Filing – 03.10.2016
Date of Hearing – 28.08.2017
The instant appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) is at the behest of the Opposite Party to assail the Order dated 01.08.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Purba Medinipur at Tamluk (for short, Ld. District Forum) in Consumer Complaint No. 50/2016. By the impugned order, the Ld. District Forum allowed the consumer complaint lodged by the Respondent Sri Gobinda Charan Metya under Section 12 of the Act with the direction upon the OP/appellant to pay Rs.2 lakhs to the complainant/respondent as compensation within 40 days otherwise it shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. till compliance.
The Respondent herein being Complainant lodged the complaint stating that he is a resident of Village & P.O.- Deulia, P.S.- Kolaghat, Dist – Purba Medinipur and a consumer under the opposite party i.e. West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (WBSEDCL) and in front of his house a new electric transformer has been installed and there is one telegraph post near the said transformer. It has been stated that on 06.03.2016 at about 12:30 A.M., one of his crossbred jersey cow aged about 4 years who used to give milk 12 Kg. Per day was electrocuted. Hence, the respondent filed the complaint with a prayer for compensation of Rs. 4 lakhs on account of death of the said cow, Rs.90,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony and Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost.
The Appellant being Opposite Party did not appear to contest.
After assessing the materials on record, the Ld. District Forum by the impugned order allowed the complaint with the direction upon the OP as indicated above. Challenging the said order, the OP has come up in this Commission with the present appeal.
I have scrutinised the materials on record and considered the submission advanced by the Ld. Advocates appearing for the parties.
On a close scrutiny of the impugned order, I find that the Ld. District Forum has disposed of the complaint on the basis of submission made by the Ld. Advocate for the complainant and relying upon supporting documents filed by the complainant, viz. – copy of GD entry, death certificate dated 08.03.2016, treatment sheet of Paikpari BPHC dated 07.03.2016 and 09.03.2016. However, the said order does not speak that the Ld. District Forum has received the evidence through affidavit from the complainant. I have also noticed that the Ld. District Forum proceeded to adjudicate whether the OP/appellant was deficient in rendering services to the complainant/respondent resulting death of a cow but did not discuss whether the complainant/respondent is a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act, more particularly, when the complainant did not mention the service connection number or consumer ID number in Paragraph-02 of the petition of complaint.
For the purpose of appreciating the situation, it would be worthwhile to reproduce the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act which provides –
“(2) The District Forum shall, if the complaint admitted by it under Section 12 relates to goods in respect of which the procedure specified in sub-Section (1) cannot be followed, or if the complaint relates to any services, -
- Refer a copy of such complaint to the opposite party directing him to give his version of the case within a period of thirty days or such extended period not exceeding fifteen days as may be granted by the District Forum;
- where the opposite party, on receipt of a copy of the complaint, referred to him under clause (a) denies or disputes the allegations contained in the complaint, or omits or fails to take any action to represent his case within the time given by the District Forum, the District Forum shall proceed to settle the consumer dispute, -
- on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant and the opposite party, where the opposite party denies or disputes the allegations contained in the complaint, or
- ex-parte on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant where the opposite party omits or fails to take any action to represent his case within the time given by the Forum”.
From the Final Order it is quite apparent that the Ld. District Forum before disposing of the complaint did not ask or direct the complainant to file evidence on affidavit in support of his case. Therefore, in view of the decision reported in 2008 (1) CPR 1 (NC) (Mathura Mohan Mahato Mistry – vs. – Dr. Bindeshwar Jha & Anr.) and the provisions of Section 13(2)(a) and (b) of the Act, the Ld. District Forum has proceeded with the complaint wrongly without appreciating evidence and as such the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
In view of the above, the appeal is allowed on contest. There will be no order as to costs.
The impugned Final Order is hereby set aside.
The case is remitted back on remand with a direction upon the parties to appear before the Ld. District Forum on 24.10.2017 positively and on that date the OP must file written version and the complainant shall have liberty to amend the petition of complaint to mention how he became consumer under WBSEDCL and thereafter the Ld. District Forum will proceed to dispose of the case in accordance with law after accepting the evidence to be led by the parties.
The Registrar of the Commission is directed to send a copy of this order to the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Purba Medinipur at Tamluk for information.
