Uttarakhand

StateCommission

RP/22/2022

Executive Engineer ,Electricity Distribution Division - Complainant(s)

Versus

Titrofitz Foods Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. Nitin Kumar Garg

30 Sep 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND

DEHRADUN

 

REVISION PETITION NO. 22 / 2022

 

Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division

Bhagwanpur, Tehsil Bhagwanpur

District Haridwar

…… Revisionist

 

Versus

 

1.         Titrofitz Foods Pvt. Ltd.

            through its Director Sh. Prashant Chaudhary S/o Sh. Ajay Singh

            R/o Flat No. B-6, Near Centrum Hotel, Mohanpura Mohammadpur

Delhi Road, Roorkee, Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar

 

2.         Sh. Mangeram S/o Sh. Buddhu

R/o Village Kunja Bahadurpur

Tehsil Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar

…… Opposite Parties

 

Sh. Nitin Kumar Garg, Learned Counsel for the Revisionist

 

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.S. Tripathi, President

               Mr. Udai Singh Tolia,                         Member-II

                                   

Dated: 30/09/2022

ORDER

(Per: Justice D.S. Tripathi, President):

 

This revision petition under Section 47(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 has been preferred against the impugned order dated 08.09.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haridwar (in short “The District Commission”) in consumer complaint No. 376 of 2020; Titrofitz Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, Bhagwanpur, Tehsil Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar and another.  By the impugned order, the District Commission has recalled its earlier orders dated 11.10.2021 and 26.04.2022, on payment of costs of Rs. 5,000/- by Sh. Anil Kumar Mishra, Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, Bhagwanpur, Tehsil Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar to opposite party No. 1 (original complainant) within a period of three days’ or to deposit the said amount before the District Commission by way of demand draft, failing which letter shall be issued to the concerned official for deduction of the aforesaid amount from the salary of Sh. Anil Kumar Mishra.  By the impugned order, the District Commission has also directed Sh. Anil Kumar Mishra to personally appear before the District Commission on 12.09.2022, the next date fixed in the consumer complaint.

 

2.       Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the record.  Taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel no need to issue notice to the opposite parties and find it a fit case to be decided at admission stage itself, without issuing notice to the opposite parties and calling for their appearance, on account of the reason that no prejudice is going to be caused to opposite party No. 1 (complainant before the District Commission), in case the revision petition is decided in its absence.

 

3.       Learned counsel for the revisionist confined his prayer to the extent that the revisionist is aggrieved only that part of the impugned order, by which the District Commission has directed Sh. Anil Kumar Mishra, Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, Bhagwanpur, Tehsil Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar to pay costs of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant within a period of three days’ or to deposit the said amount before the District Commission by way of demand draft, failing which letter shall be issued to the concerned official for deduction of the aforesaid amount from the salary of Sh. Anil Kumar Mishra.  Learned counsel submitted that Sh. Anil Kumar Mishra, holding the post of Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, Bhagwanpur, Tehsil Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar, was not impleaded as party to the consumer complaint in his individual / personal capacity, but the consumer complaint was filed, impleading Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, Bhagwanpur, Tehsil Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar as opposite party No. 1 and Sh. Mangeram as opposite party No. 2 thereto, hence there was no justification on the part of the District Commission to direct the said official – Sh. Anil Kumar Mishra to pay the aforesaid costs to the complainant.

 

4.       As is stated above, by impugned order dated 08.09.2022, the District Commission has recalled its earlier orders dated 11.10.2021 and 26.04.2022, although no such power has been conferred to the District Commission under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, by which it may recall its earlier order, but we refrain ourselves from making any comment on the same, for the reason that part of the impugned order is not in challenge before us, as the same is in favour of the revisionist.

 

5.       Having considered the submissions raised by learned counsel for the revisionist and after going through the record, we find force in the submissions so made by learned counsel for the revisionist.  The reason being that admittedly, Sh. Anil Kumar Mishra, posted as Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, Bhagwanpur, Tehsil Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar, was not impleaded as party to the consumer complaint in his individual / personal capacity and the record clearly shows that Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, Bhagwanpur, Tehsil Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar was impleaded as opposite party No. 1 to the consumer complaint.  This apart, if the District Commission was of the view that any inaction / wrong doing has been committed by the opposite party No. 1 to the consumer complaint, the costs / damages should have been imposed upon opposite party No. 1 and not upon Sh. Anil Kumar Mishra.  Whatever act has been done by Sh. Anil Kumar Mishra posted as Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, Bhagwanpur, Tehsil Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar, the same has been done by him in official capacity and not in his personal capacity.  Even otherwise, the direction to pay costs of Rs. 5,000/- by Sh. Anil Kumar Mishra, Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, Bhagwanpur, Tehsil Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar, to the complainant has been passed by the District Commission in the proceedings of consumer complaint and not in execution proceedings, which was not at all warranted and can not legally be sustained and is liable to be set aside.  Personal appearance of Sh. Anil Kumar Mishra before the District Commission is also unwarranted and direction to that effect passed by the District Commission, is also liable to be set aside.

 

6.       For the reasons aforesaid, revision petition is allowed in part.  Impugned order dated 08.09.2022 passed by the District Commission insofar as directing Sh. Anil Kumar Mishra, Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, Bhagwanpur, Tehsil Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar to pay costs of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant (opposite party No. 1 herein) within a period of three days’ or to deposit the said amount before the District Commission by way of demand draft, failing which letter shall be issued to the concerned official for deduction of the aforesaid amount from the salary of Sh. Anil Kumar Mishra, is set aside.  The personal appearance of Sh. Anil Kumar Mishra, Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, Bhagwanpur, Tehsil Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar, before the District Commission, is also dispensed with.  It is directed that the said costs of Rs. 5,000/- shall be paid to the complainant by Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, Bhagwanpur, Tehsil Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar (opposite party No. 1 in the consumer complaint).  Costs of this revision petition shall be easy. 

 

7.       A copy of this Order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 / 2019.  The Order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.

 

 

(U.S. TOLIA)                            (JUSTICE D.S. TRIPATHI)

               Member-II                                                President

 

K