AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This Revision Petition, by Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited (for short "the Corporation") and its Executive Engineer, is directed against the order dated 11.09.2009, passed by the Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short "the State Commission") in First Appeal No. FA-16/2009. By the impugned order, the State Commission, while reversing the order dated 23.05.2009, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, West Tripura, Agartala (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint No. C.C. 38/2008, has directed the Corporation to pay to the Complainants a sum of 5,00,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the Complaint till payment, for the loss suffered by the Complainants on account of electrocution of their 22 years old son.
The main grievance of the Corporation in this Revision Petition is that although before the District Forum the Complainants were allowed to examine two witnesses, no opportunity was granted to it to lead evidence in rebuttal, as, after the recording of the Complainants'' evidence, the case was listed for arguments on the preliminary objections raised on behalf of the Corporation regarding the maintainability of the Complaint.
An application has been received from the Complainants, praying for some time to file objections to the present Revision Petition. In the application, it is stated that there is sufficient evidence on record to show the deficiency and negligence on the part of the Corporation and, therefore, the State Commission was fully justified in awarding the afore-noted compensation to them.
Having perused the order sheets, maintained by the District Forum, we are of the view that there is merit in the submissions made on behalf of the Corporation. We find that on 16.03.2009, when the case was listed for recording of Complainants'' evidence, on conclusion of cross-examination of one of the witnesses, the case was adjourned to 16.04.2009 for hearing on the question of maintainability of the Complaint. Accordingly, on 16.04.2009 and then on 07.05.2009 arguments on the said question were heard and the case was adjourned to 23.05.2009 for pronouncement of the judgment. As noted above, the District Forum upheld the objection raised on behalf of the Corporation and dismissed the Complaint on the ground that the dispute in question could not be termed as a ?consumer dispute''. It is thus, evident from the record that as the District Forum had listed the case for hearing arguments on the maintainability of the Complaint, the occasion for leading evidence by the Corporation did not arise. It appears that a plea in this behalf was urged before the State Commission but the same was overlooked.
Under the given circumstances, we are of the opinion that the order of the District Forum suffered from the vice of violation of principles of natural justice and, thus, could not be sustained by the State Commission. In that view of the matter, acceding to the request made on behalf of the Complainants for time to file reply to this Revision Petition would be meaningless.
Bearing in mind all these factors, we allow the Revision Petition; set aside the impugned order; and restore the Complaint to the board of the District Forum for fresh adjudication, after affording an opportunity to the Corporation to lead evidence in support of its stand in the Written Version. At the same time, we also direct that the amount, directed to be deposited by the Corporation vide our order dated 30.07.2015 in this Commission, shall now be deposited in the
District Forum for being released to the Complainants. However, before releasing the said amount, the District Forum shall obtain an affidavit from the Complainants, undertaking to refund the said amount in the event of their Complaint not finding favour with the District Forum.
The Corporation through its Counsel is directed to appear before the District Forum on 30.05.2016 for further proceedings.
Since the Complaint was filed as far back as in the year 2008, we direct the District Forum to dispose it of as expeditiously as practicable, after notice to the Complainants, but not later than four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Our order directing deposit of 50% of the decretal amount shall be complied with by the Corporation within two weeks from today.
The Revision Petition stands disposed of in the above terms, with no order as to costs.
A copy of this order shall be communicated to the Complainants by the office.