S.P. SINGHA vs New Delhi Municipal Committee

THE petitioner herein had filed a complaint before the District Forum, Delhi seeking to recover from Respondent No. 1 (N.D.M.C) compensation amounting to Rs. 900/- for damage caused to his Video Cassette Recorder allegedly due to sudden increase in the voltage of the electric supply to his residential house in Satya Marg, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi on March 25,1989 at about 4.50 P.M. THE case of the complainant is that the sudden increase in voltage was caused by some defect in the junction box from which electricity was being supplied to his residence.

THE Opposite Party did not appear before the District Forum nor did it file any objections in spite of notice having been served on it. Hence the case was proceeded with ex-parte. THE District Forum passed an ex-parte Order directing the Opposite Party (N.D.M.C.) to pay Rs. 900/- by way of compensation to the complainant within one month. An appeal was preferred by the N.D.M.C. before the State Commission, Delhi challenging the aforesaid order passed by the District Forum.

The State Commission wrongly overlooked the fact that the Opposite Party (appellant before it) had remained ex-parte before the District Forum and stated as follows in paragraph 4 of its order : - "The complaint was opposed by N.D.M.C, defendant. They denied their liability. The District Forum decreed the claim of the complainant as mentioned above. The defendant has come up in appeal to the State Commission."

AFTER arguments were heard in part in the appeal, the State Commission was of the opinion that the C.P.W.D. was a necessary party to the proceedings and accordingly it directed that the said department be impleaded as a party. On notice being served to the Executive Engineer, C.P.W.D., Chanakyapuri, New Delhi, the said Officer appeared before the State Commission on the next date of hearing and contested the claim of the complainant. AFTER hearing the Advocate for the appellant, the Executive Engineer, C.P.W.D. and the representative of the complainant, the State Commission reserved its order in the matter. Subsequendy it passed the order now impugned before us which is dated "8.3.1991/21.3.1991". The State Commission has allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the District Forum and dismissed the complaint. In paragraph 6 of its order, the State Commission has observed as follows : "... The only question that arises for determination is, whether the alleged high voltage was due to negligence on the part of the appellant or C.P.W.D. It is admitted that the high voltage was found in the house of the complainant and in one other house to which the electric supply was given from the same junction box from which the electric supply was given to the complainant''s house and that electric energy was supplied by N.D.M.C. It is also admitted before us by the complainant''s agent that if high voltage had been released by the N.D.M.C. in the main line all the houses to which the electric supply was given there from would have been effected and their electric fittings would have been damaged. As already mentioned above no such fitting happened. Therefore it cannot be said that there was negligence on the part of the N.D.M.C."

AFTER recording the above finding exonerating the N.D.M.C the State Commission went on to consider the question whether there was any negligence on the part of the C.P.W.D. The relevant part of its discussion culminating in a finding that there was negligence either on the part of the N.D.M.C. or on the part of C.P.W.D. runs a under: "Now what is to be seen whether there was any negligence on the part of C.P.W.D. The agent of the complainant argued that there was some fault in the junction box wherefrom the electric supply was given to the house of the complainant. The parties admit that the junction box had been fixed by C.P.W.D. and it was responsible for its maintenance. It is further admitted that the junction box was not required to be sealed and was accessible to all the persons. We are further informed that no one from C.P.W.D. came to repair the junction box within a short period before the complainant received high voltage or on that date. If the junction box was not reparied on that date and the high voltage was stated to be due to some fame in the junction box, the C.P.W.D. cannot be held responsible for high voltage and consequently for damage to the VCR of the complainant. It emerges from the aforesaid discussion that there was no negligence either on the part of N.D.M.C. nor on the part of C.P.W.D."

We are constrained to observe that even after the close and careful reading of the paragraph of the State Commission extracted above, it is difficult together the exact basis or reasoning on which the conclusion recorded in the last part of the paragraph is rested. There appears to be a manifest inconsistency between the earlier part of the said paragraph where reference is made to an admission made by the parties, and the penultimate sentence thereof wherein is contained the sole reasoning given by the State Commission. In the circumstances it cannot be said that there has been a proper determination of the crucial question involved in the case after due application of mind by the State Commission. Hence the impugned order suffers from a material irregularity. Mention has already been made of the fact that the sole Opposite Party in the complaint petition namely N.D.M.C. remained ex-parte before the District Forum. No material was therefore placed before the District Forum on the side of the Opposite Party. In the circumstances, the case was summarily disposed by the District Forum by an ex-parte order in favour of the complainant. At the appeal stage, the State Commission considered it necessary to implead the C.P.W.D. as a party to the proceedings. If the purpose of impleadment was to determine in the presence of both the N.D.M.C. and C.P.W.D. the crucial question whether the responsibility for the maintenance of junction box in good condition vested with the N.D.M.C. or whether it lay with the C.P.W.D. the principles of natural justice demanded that the parties concerned should be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present their case before the State Commission supported by relevant materials. What appears to have transpired before the State Commission is that the C.P.W.D. which was newly impleaded at the appellate stage was merely orally heard through its representative on the date on which it made its first appearance and the hearing of the case was concluded.

FOR a satisfactory determination of the question as to which of the aforementioned two authorities is charged with the responsibility of maintaining the junction box in question, the relevant rules/manual dealing with the topic should certainly be of assistance. Justice and fairness required that an opportunity should be given to the newly impleaded party - CP.W.D. - to file its objections and also to produce relevant records and papers including the rules/manual. Alternatively, taking into account the fact that the disposal by the District FORum was ex-parte, the State Commission could have remitted the matter to the District FORum for giving an opportunity to the complainant as well as to both the respondents to substantiate their respective cases by adducing documentary/oral evidence inclusive of production of rules/manual etc.

FROM the foregoing discussion it becomes clear that the interests of justice demand that there should be a de novo disposal of the case. We set aside the order passed by the State Commission and District Forum and remand the case to the District Forum for fresh disposal on merits in the light of the observations contained in this order after affording a full and fair opportunity to both sides to adduce further documentary or oral evidence in the case. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.