: O R D E R :

MR. S.COARI, LD. MEMBER

The present Appeal has been directed against the judgement and order dt. 30.3.09 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Forum, North 24 Parganas at Barasat, in D.F. Case No. 53/2008 wherein the Ld. District Forum disposed of the petition of complaint with a direction upon the OP to give new service connection in the tenanted portion of the petitioner within a fortnight from the date of the order together with cost of Rs. 1,000/-.


The complainant’s case before the Ld. District Forum, in brief, was that the complainant is a tenant under one M/s. Jayantya Arathdar and Prasanta Arathdar in respect of the suit property. The complainant obtained trade licence from the local authority and applied before the OP for new electric connection and in the process, deposited a sum of Rs. 50,000/- for the purpose. But in spite of receipt of the said amount the OPs did not supply electric connection on the plea that the property in question was sub-judice before the legal forum and hence, the petition of complaint has been filed.


The OPs contested the case by filing written objection thereby denying all the material allegations of the petition of complaint contending inter alia that as the owner of the premises raised some objections, the OPs were awaiting necessary direction from the appropriate legal authority and after obtaining such necessary direction the connection would be given to the complainant.


The Ld. District Forum while disposing of the petition of complaint has observed that the complainant having paid and deposited the quotation amount and in the absence of any order from the appropriate legal forum as regards restriction of giving electric connection to the complainant, there was no impediment in giving electric connection to the complainant and the Ops having failed to do so without any justifiable reason, which Ops were bound to give against the deposit which has already been made by the complainant, allowed the petition of complaint in the manner discussed above.


The only moot question that revolves round the present Appeal is as to whether the Ld. District Forum was justified enough in disposing of the case in the manner as discussed above.
DECISION WITH REASONS

At the time of hearing it has been submitted on behalf of the Appellant that the Ld. District Forum has not appreciated the case of the parties and has gone beyond the prescribed limit and in fact, has accepted certain facts which is not the actual state of affairs between the parties. While elaborating on this point it is submitted on behalf of the Appellant/Electric Company that though the complainant never deposited Rs. 50,000/- and the complainant having deposited only Rs. 2,000/-, the Ld. District Forum has erroneously disposed of the petition of complaint in favour of the complainant after taking it granted that the complainant deposited the entire quotation amount to the tune of Rs. 50,000/-, which is totally against the actual state of affairs and as such, the impugned judgement is not supportable under the law and the same is liable to set aside.


We have duly considered the submission put forward by the Ld. Advocate on behalf of the Appellant and have gone through the materials on record and pleadings of the parties including the impugned judgement and find much substance in the submissions put forward on behalf of the Appellant inasmuch as from the letter dt. 20.4.09 written at the instance of the complainant to the Divisional Manager, Barasat D-Division, WBSEDCL and it has become crystal clear that the complainant never deposited Rs. 50,000/- towards quotation amount and that he has deposited only Rs. 2,000/- for getting electric connection only. Similar fact is also reflected in the application deposited by the complainant before the Public Grievance Cell.

If that be the position, we think that the Ld. District Forum could not appreciate the actual state of affairs and has mistakenly taken it granted that the complainant/Respondent deposited Rs. 50,000/- towards quotation amount and as such, has arrived at a wrong decision. We also take note of the fact that the parties did not adduce evidence in respect their respective cases before the Ld. District Forum. Accordingly, we are of considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if the Appeal be allowed and the case be sent back on open remand before the Ld. District Forum for disposal after giving opportunity to both sides to adduce evidence in support of their respective cases. In the result, the Appeal succeeds.


Hence, it is ORDERED that the Appeal stands allowed on contest but without any order as to cost. The case be sent back on open remand to the Ld. District Forum with direction to permit both parties to adduce evidence, if any, in support of their respective cases and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible. The impugned judgement is set aside.

MEMBER MEMBER