VISHNATH KESERWANI vs LUCKNOW ELECTRICITY SUPPLY UNDERTAKING

THIS is an application for modification of order dated 30.4.1998 passed by this Commission on the fact whether the written statement has been filed by the opposite party in terms of the compliance of the order of the National Commission. In this application opposite party has prayed for modification of the order dated 3.4.1998 on the ground that the time for filing the written statement by virtue of order of National Commission dated 31.5.1996 will start to run from the date of receipt of the copy of the order by the opposite party. According to learned Counsel the copy of the order dated 31.5.1996 passed by National Commission was issued to the opposite party on 17.6.1996 and the written statement was filed on 12.7.1996 within 30 days from the receipt of the certified copy of the order. According to the allegations of the applicant, this question of fact escaped the notice of this Commission. Hence the order dated 3.4.1998 be modified accordingly. Opposite party filed objections opposing the application.

WE have heard learned Counsel for the parties. A perusal of file will go to show that the National Commission by its order dated 30.5.1996 allowed the appeal of the opposite party and directed it to file the written statement within one month from today after affording an opportunity to both the parties to urge on their contentions before the State Commission. It was further directed that the trial will proceed de novo after filing of the written statement. The certified copy of this order was issued to the opposite party on 17.6.1996 as per the stamp affixed on the application of the National Commission certifying the copy to be "True copy". If the period of one month is taken from the date of order, as was done in the previous order which is sought to be modified, then the written statement which was filed on 12.7.1996 is beyond time. According to learned Counsel for the opposite party the period of limitation will start from the date of intimation of the order and not from the date of order of the National Commission. According to the learned Counsel period of limitation commences from the date of communication of the order and not from the date of the order passed by the National Commission. He has placed reliance on the case of Housing Board, Haryana v. Housing Board Welfare Association & Ors., III (1995) CPJ 28 (SC). The Hon''ble Supreme Court has interpreted the relevant provisions relating to the limitation prescribed under Section 15 of the Act. This section makes provision for appeal and prescribes the limitation within which an appeal is to be filed. It further considered Rules 4(1) and 8(3) of Haryana Consumer Protection Rules, 1988. These rules provide that the orders of the District Forum shall be signed and dated by the Members of the concerned District Forum constituting the Bench and shall be communicated to the parties free of charge. Sub-rule 3 provides that the Memorandum of Appeal shall be accompanied by a certified copy of the order appealed against. A similar provision exists in Rule 8 of the Rules framed by the State Government with respect to the copies to be supplied to the parties. It states that the copy of the order of the State Commission on appeal shall be furnished free of charge to the parties after it is signed by the Members constituting the Bench. Similarly Rule X of Rule 7 provides for communication of copies free of charge in the case pending before the State Commission.

Thus we find that free copies are to be supplied to the parties after the pronouncement of a judgment. Interpreting these provisions of Haryana Consumer Protection Rules, Hon''ble Supreme Court held that Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act cannot be read in isolation but it has to be read alongwith Rules 4(10) and 8(3) of the Rules and by reading both these rules, giving an impression that the purpose, object and intention of these provisions is to protect the interests of the parties before the District Forum by making it obligatory on it to provide a copy of the order duly signed and dated by the Members of the Bench and the period of limitation prescribed that is filed by the appellant shall be computed as commencing from the date of communication of the order in the manner laid down in the rules.

IT was further held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court that being so, it has to be appreciated that mere pronouncement of an order in the open Court will not be enough but under the scheme of the Rules a copy of the said order has also to be communicated to the parties affected by the said order so that the party adversely affected therefrom may have a fair and reasonable opportunity of knowing the text, reasons and contents thereof so as to formulate grounds of attack before the appellate or higher Forums. In the absence of such communication of signed and dated order, the party adversely affected by it will have no means of knowing the contents of the order so as to challenge the same and get it set aside by the Appellate Authority or the higher Forums. Thus in view of the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court it is crystal clear that the period of limitation will start not from the date of pronouncement of the order but from the date of communication of the order to the parties.

KEEPING in view these facts it will be apparent that in the case in hand, the period of limitation will start from 17.6.1996 when the certified copy of the order was obtained on behalf of the opposite party by his Advocate from the National Commission and not from the date of order i.e. 31.5.1996 passed by the National Commission. If we apply these principles to this case, we find that the written statement which was filed on 12.7.1996 is within one month from the date of communication of order. A perusal of order dated 7.10.1996 passed in the order sheet when the file was put up after remand from the National Commission, it has been mentioned that according to learned Counsel for the opposite party, written statement was filed on 12.7.1996. It is further mentioned in the order that written statement is not on record and it would be traced and kept on record. The complainant was directed to file the replication by next day without prejudice to his right. Thereafter the case was put up on three days but it could not be taken up and was taken up on 17.7.1992 when another direction was given to the complainant to file replication. Then on 16.3.1998 it was stated by the learned Counsel for the opposite party that the written statement could not be traced in the file and a carbon copy of the written statement be allowed to be filed within two weeks alongwith an affidavit. Thus a copy of the written statement was filed. Thereafter the application of the complainant was taken up for disposal by which the written statement was rejected which order is being sought to be modified on the basis of position of law. Thus in view of the position of law, as has emerged out from the order of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, we hold that the written statement as stated by the learned Counsel for the opposite party was filed within the period of limitation. Therefore, a fresh written statement be filed by the opposite party within a period of one month. Put up for further orders on 3.2.2000. Order passed.