Tripura

StateCommission

A/24/2019

Smt. Aparna Dasgupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Deputy General Manager, Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. Kumar Sankar Sarma, Mr. Koushik Nath

15 Nov 2019

ORDER

Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala.

 

 

Case No.A.24.2019

 

 

 

1. Smt. Aparna Dasgupta,

W/o Sri Swapan Kr. Das,

Near Governor House (Old),

Kunjaban, Agartala, West Tripura.

… … … … Appellant/Complainant.

Vs

 

1. The Deputy General Manager,

Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd.,

(A Govt. of Tripura Enterprise),

O/o the Deputy General Manager,

Capital Complex Division, 79 Tilla, Agartala,

District - West Tripura, Pin: 799006.

 

2. The Sr. Manager,

Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd.,

(A Govt. of Tripura Enterprise),

ESD-V, GB (O&M), near GB Bazar,

Agartala, West Tripura, Pin: 799006.

 

3. Chief Managing Director,

Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd.,

(A Govt. of Tripura Enterprise),

Bhuturia Agartala, Tripura West, Pin: 799001.

 

… … … … Respondent/Opposite Parties.

                                               

Present

Hon’ble Mr. Justice U.B. Saha

President,

State Commission

 

Dr. Chhanda Bhattacharyya,

Member,

State Commission

 

 

 

For the Appellant:                                                Mr. Kumar Sankar Sarma, Adv.

For the Respondents:                                          Mr. Rajib Saha, Adv.  

Date of Hearing & Delivery of Judgment:          15.11.2019.

J U D G M E N T [O R A L]

 

U.B. Saha, J,

The instant appeal is filed against the order dated 05.07.2019 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as District Forum), West Tripura, Agartala in Case No.C.C.18 of 2019 whereby and whereunder the learned District Forum dropped the complaint case for  non-prosecution.

2. Heard Mr. Kumar Sankar Sarma, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant (hereinafter referred to as complainant) as well as Mr. Rajib Saha, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of Miss Rajashree Purakayastha, Ld. Counsel on instruction (hereinafter referred to as opposite parties) for the respondents.
3. As agreed to by the Ld. Counsel appearing for the parties, the appeal is taken up for final disposal at this stage.
4. Brief facts of the case are as follows:-

Complainant on payment of Rs.17,916/- prayed for shifting of L.T. Line and Electric post which was erected in front of the house of the complainant. It is also stated that presently the single connection of the complainant had been converted to three phase connection and the same had been installed from separate electric post from other side of the house of the complainant. Accordingly, the complainant submitted an application dated 09.10.2018 for shifting the electric post which is standing in front of her house. Accordingly, a demand note bearing number F.No.3(7)/DGM/EDCC/4831-32 dated 15.11.2018 was issued by the opposite party no.1 for payment of an amount of Rs.2,865/- for shifting the electric post in front portion of the house of the complainant. Subsequently, as per the demand of the opposite party, the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.2,865/- through demand draft, but the electric post had not been shifted for which the complainant again submitted an application dated 11.01.2019 before the opposite party no.2 for shifting/removal of old electric post. In response to the said letter, the opposite party no.2 informed the complainant vide letter dated 18.01.2019 that an agency was sent to the site, but the same could not be undertaken as the local people raised objection. The complainant finding no other alternative approached the opposite parties by letter dated 25.01.2019 ventilating her grievance and also informed that the site is very much ready for work and no one can raise objection in that regard, but surprisingly the opposite parties failed to discharge their legitimate duties which in turn resulting in deficiency in providing service by the opposite parties. Hence, the complaint petition.

5. Mr. Sarma, Ld. Counsel while urging for setting aside the impugned order would contend that the learned District Forum dismissed the complaint petition for non-prosecution without considering the merit of the case and more so, the learned District Forum also did not consider the written statement on record.
6. On the other hand, Mr. Saha, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of Miss Purakayastha, Ld. Counsel for the respondents would contend that he has no objection if the matter is remanded to the learned District Forum after setting aside the impugned order subject to payment of cost.
7. We have gone through the orders passed by the learned District Forum from which it appears that the learned District Forum admitted the complaint case on 24.04.2019 and thereafter, fixed the case on 22.05.2019 for S.R. and written objection. On 22.05.2019, parties appeared through their Ld. Counsel and opposite parties have filed a petition praying for time to file written objection which was allowed and the case was fixed on 10.06.2019 for submission of written objection by the opposite parties. On 10.06.2019, the complainant did not take any step. On the other hand, the opposite parties again prayed for time to file written objection and such prayer was allowed and the case was fixed on 25.06.2019 for submission of written objection. On 25.06.2019, the opposite parties have submitted the written objection and the case was fixed for order on 03.07.2019. On 03.07.2019, neither the complainant nor the opposite parties has taken any step. As a result, the case was adjourned and the matter was fixed on 05.07.2019 for submission of written objection by the opposite parties and order. It is not clear to us when the opposite parties have already submitted their written objection on 25.06.2019, then why the learned District Forum fixed the case on 05.07.2019 for submission of written objection, meaning thereby, the learned District Forum failed to apply its mind while passing the order. On 05.07.2019, as neither the complainant nor the opposite parties took steps, the complaint case was dropped for non-prosecution. According to us, the learned District Forum should not have disposed of the case for non-prosecution; rather it should have decided the case on merit when the written statement was already with the learned District Forum.

In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that this is a fit case where the matter should be remanded to the learned District Forum to decide the case afresh. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned District Forum to decide the case afresh subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- by the complainant to the opposite parties within five days from today.

The learned District Forum shall issue notice upon the parties for their appearance and hear the case afresh after providing opportunity to the parties for adducing their respective evidence subject to payment of the cost as ordered by this Commission. If the parties fail to adduce any evidence, then the matter should be decided on merit as the pleadings of the parties have already been completed. In the result, the appeal is disposed of.

Send down the records to the learned District Forum, West Tripura, Agartala.

 

MEMBER State Commission Tripura

PRESIDENT State Commission Tripura