SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, R.S.E.B. vs NATWAR LAL

AGAINST the order dated 26-5-1990 passed by the District Forum, Ajmer in Complaint Case No. 102/1989 the opposite party-appellant has filed this appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ("the Act" herein). The complainant-respondent filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act stating that the opposite party has not been rendering proper service. It has been stated in the complaint.

"That R.S.E.B. has not been able to Provide even trouble free accePtance of Payments to Public in Ajmer is the cause of this letter. R.S.E.B., Ajmer has Provided one counter with four windows at Hathibhata and four such other counters in various Parts of the town. The lane on which the counter exists in Hathibhata is narrow and dingy. No worthwhile shed has been Provided to save the consumers from scorching heat, Queues at time are very long that it takes hours to get a bill dePosited and to toP at all, the window clerks are the most mis-behaved lot-that any educated and reasonable Person would like to hit them on their heads, but for the Prevailing laws of the land that they should not accePt more than one bill at a time even if the same are from the same family adds more to this aPathy. This too under the cover of rules statutory is that so?"

The comPlainant has alleged that the oPPosite Party SuPerintending Engineer, R.S.E.B., Ajmer has only exPressed his inability to do anything in the matter. It was Prayed that a direction . may be issued to the RSEB to at least Provide trouble-free accePtance of Payments at their counters. It aPPears to be a common cause litigation.

A rePly was submitted by the Assistant Engineer (Circle-III), RSEB, Ajmer oPPosing the comPlaint. It was stated that for the convenience of the Public three counters established for Protection against heat, rain shades were established. Procedure for dePositing the bills has also been detailed in the version of the case.

THE complainant did not produce any evidence before the District Forum. Arguments were heard by the District Forum, Ajmer on 12-12-1989. Thereafter it passed the impugned order on 26-5-1990. The operative part of the order is as under:- "miHkksDrk }kjk vkns''k fn;k tkrk gS fd vizkFkhZ eq[;ky; gkFkh HkkVk ds {ks+= es miHkksDrkvks dks /kwi] xjeh o o"kkZ vkfn ls cpko gsrw nks ekg dh vof/k es 3 dkmUVj LFkkfir djs ,oa ;g O;oLFkk djds eap dks lwfpr djs vU;Fkk og eap dh voekuuk dk nks"kh ekuk tk;sxk A rhu dkmUVj o ,d ikoj gkl nwljk nsgyh xsV ds vkl ikl o rhljk ekfVZUMy fczt ds vkl ikl LFkkfir fd;k tkos A"

DIRECTIONS for doing certain acts were mentioned in the impugned order. The opposite parties have filed this appeal. After considering the application, affidavit etc. the appeal was registered on 16-2-1991 subject to all just exceptions. On 4-4-1991 an application was submitted on behalf of the appellants that 2 months time may be allowed to explore the possibility of settlement between the parties. Time was allowed. On that day, the complainant-respondent was present. Today on behalf of the respondent nobody has appeared. Mr. G.C. Garg, learned Counsel for the appellants stated that the settlement has not been arrived at. As nobody appeared on behalf of the respondent, we were left with no alternative but to hear Mr. Garg, learned Counsel for the appellants. Mr. Garg submitted that the directions given by the District Forum are not warranted and further that the complaint as filed was beyond the scope of the Act. He also submitted that it is not possible for the appellants to start the counter on Delhi Gate and Martin Bridge and further there is no place available and so it is not possible to construct the counter. He stated that the Municipal Authorities have continuously been approached since 1985 to provide the place for the office, cash collection window and for other necessary things but the case was not attended and that in the isolated place the Cash Collection Counter cannot be opened unless the proper arrangement for safety is made and to deposit the amount collected with the Head Cashier at Hathibhata Office. According to him, the arrangement for which a direction has been issued could not be made. It was contended by him that the directions given by the District Forum are beyond the scope of the Act and that such directions are not contemplated by the provisions contained in Sec. 14(1) of the Act. We have considered the submissions made by Mr. Garg. As has been held in various cases decided by the National Commission that the Redressal Forums established under the Act can grant only those reliefs which are enumerated in Sec. 14(1) of the Act and that they cannot grant reliefs beyond that. In the case of deficiency in service even if it is established the redressal forums can grant compensation, which is not the case here, the direction for the establishment of the counters etc. are beyond the reliefs enumerated in Sec. 14(1) of the Act and they cannot be granted. It may be recalled that the District Forum has made certain positive direction and ordered the opposite parties to do certain acts which cannot be ordered. In these circumstances the directions made by the District Forum for the establishment of the counters are not warranted under the Act.

WE are happy to note that Mr. G.C. Garg, learned Counsel for the opposite-parties-appellants assured us that as the process of bifurcation of Sub-Division is going on and after creating the new Sub-Division, there will be more cash collection centres in Ajmer having tin shed to protect against rain and sun. It is also expected that bifurcation of Sub-Division will take time not more than 6 months. WE hope that steps will be taken by the opposite parties soon to establish cash collection service in Ajmer and also proper arrangement to protect from rains and sun shall be made. However as stated above the reliefs which the District Forum has granted are beyond the scope of the Act. The directions or orders given cannot be sustained. The appeal succeeds on the points raised by Mr. G.C. Garg, learned Counsel for the appellants.

THE appeal is allowed and the order dated 26-5-1990 passed by the District Forum, Ajmer in Complaint Case No. 102/89 is set aside. THE complaint shall stand dismissed. THEre will be no order as to costs of the appeal. Appeal allowed.