AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
COMPLAINANTS are appellants in this appeal under Section 17(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
COMPLAINTS had filed a complaint before the District Forum seeking speedy redressal in regard to safeguard as well as to restore the Constitutional rights in personal liberties. Their case is that they filed a writ application in the Supreme Court. During pendency of the writ application respondents arbitrarily discontinued the supply of electricity with effect from 1.1.1988 without any notice to the complaints. In spite of discontinuance to supply, electricity bills are being sent every month in the names of complaints. Opposite parties not receipt of copy of the complaint, have stated that one of the complainants Srustidhar Barik has fixed his new matre and is being supplied with electricity. Other opposite parties who have not taken new metres are charged with 15% load factor. Two of the complainants Jayanarayan and Srustidhar have cleared up their arrear dues. Other consumers have not paid any dues and are using electricity by means of illegal hooking.
On perusal of the complaint and the case stated by opposite parties with the documents and after giving opportunity of being heard to the parties, District Forum has come to the conclusion that there is no sufficient material to show that there has been non-supply of electricity to the complainants from August, 1988. It was, however, found that charges made on basis of 15% load factor have not been properly calculated and defective bills are sent to the complainants which comes witin the meaning of deficiency in service. Accordingly, the Forum directed opposite parties to correct the bill of complainant Surendra on basis of 15% load factor keeping view the amount claimed by them in the bill relating to on month of December, 1988. Aggrieved by the same, complaints have preferred this appeal. Alongwith the appeal, they have filed the copy of the complainants and a copy of the additional facts with the copy of a bill of the month of July, 1990 of Jayanarayan Dutta.
A consumer can file a complaint. On his behalf a registered voluntary Society can also file a complaint. State Government or Central Government can file complaint on behalf of a consumer. Various consumers having common interest or havingsome dispute individually can file complaint against the person responsible for defect in goods or deficiency in service. There is no scope under the Consumer Protection Act for redressal of Public grievances. Therefore, relief so far as unknown and unascertained members of the society is not envisaged under the Act. In otherwords public interest litigations are beyond scope of the Act. Complaint has to be confined to the respective complaints. A complaint is to assert facts which would lead to conclusion that there is defect in goods or deficiency in service. Where there are documents which would support the case of complainant it has to produce the same if it is in its custody or control unless he explains why he is not able to produce the same. In some cases the redressal agency may also exercise the powers to call for documents. Where such process would defeat the object of disposal within the time limited by Statute, redressal agency may not be inclined to examine the question even though it has jurisdiction and may leave the dispute to be adjudicated in appropriate alternate Forum available since the object of legislation would be defeated if the regular Forum before the Act came into force is shifted to the redressal agencies. Where, however, dominant intention of a complainant is to avoid expenses and brings complicated questions which would require full dress investigation of facts, redressal agency will not entertain the complaint. Unless this interpretation is given genuine cases are likely to be affected on account of time consumed in enquiries in respect of these classes of disputes. Option is to be left with the redressal agencies and not with the complainant.
WE find that the materials supplied are not sufficient to draw, any conclusion in support of deficiency in service to individual complainants. WE would have confirmed the order. WE, however, find that complainants have made exercises in Supreme Court for a long time involving time and energy. Decision of the Supreme Court is not before us. Therefore, ends of justice would be best served in case we set aside the order of the District Forum and give liberty to complainants to bring all materials in their support to record of the District Forum so that grievances of the complainants can be considered individually by the District Forum. In result, appeal is allowed to the extent indicated. Appeal allowed as indicated.