1. IT is an appeal against an order dated 1.2.94 passed in C.D.F. Case No. 130 of 1994.
2. THE respondent complainant filed the aforesaid case stating that he had been enjoying electricity from the erstwhile tenant one Rajendra Prasad who surrendered his tenancy and made a deed transferring the meter in his name. That O.Ps. Nos. 3 and 4 in the complaint petition took off the main loop from the main switch and since then the complainant was in the dark.
The opposite parties contended that it was a dispute between the landlord and the tenant and that the complainant was not a consumer in relation to them. The CESC also did not interfere as according to them it was a dispute between the landlord and the tenant.
The C.D.F ordered that the O.Ps. Nos. 3 and 4 shall restore the electric line of the complainant within three days failing which penal action would follow.
3. THE only point for consideration is if the order of the C.D.F. is correct.
On a perusal of the order of the lower Court we find that it is not at all a speaking order. The Forum has neither discussed nor decided the dispute raised before it. It has not decided if the complainant is a consumer and if the dispute is maintainable before the District Forum. It is also not understood for what purpose the next date has been fixed. If the case has not been disposed of, it is an interim order which is prohibited in a proceeding before the Forum. If it was a final order the Forum ought to have given its reasoning for the order. The order therefore, cannot be submitted.
4. HENCE the appeal succeeds. The order of the District Forum dated 1.2.94 in the Case No. 130/94 is set aside. The case is sent back and remanded to the lower Court with a direction to dispose of the same in accordance with law with a proper finding to be reflected in a speaking order. Prof. Sunil Kanti Kar, Member - Seen the judgment and order in the instant case passed by the learned President, but I beg to differ from the observation made by the learned President in respect or interim order passed by the Calcutta District Forum as well as about the locus standi of the complainant/respondent No. 1 if he is a consumer or not. Undoubtedly the complainant/respondent No. 1 is a consumer in respect of electricity enjoyed by him. Although the complainant/respondent No.1 enjoyed electricity from a meter standing in the name of one Rajendra Prasad an erstwhile tenant of the premises but as he surrendered the tenancy he arranged to transfer the meter in name of the complainant/respondent No. 1 but the opposite party Nos. 3 & 4 with mala fide intention took off the loop from the main switch of the meter in September, 1993 and since then the complainant/respondent No. 1 has been deprived of enjoying the electricity for the mala fide action on the part of the appellant. I hold that it is the duty of the C.E.S.C. Ltd., the respondent No. therein to ensure supply of electricity to its consumer and if any sabotage is caused by anyone but C.E.S.C. Ltd. must take appropriate steps to stop such sabotage and also to maintain supply of electricity to its consumer, the complainant/respondent No.1. So it is utter failure and/or negligence and/or deficiency in service on the part of the C.E.S.C. Ltd. to ensure regular supply of electricity to the complainant/ respondent No. 1 and C.E.S.C. Ltd. in respect of certain inflated bills, the learned C.D.F. for adjudication of the said inflated bills fixed up the next date on 3.3.94 and there is no wrong in it.
I also hold that an interim order passed in this regard is no wrong at all as by majority views, it was held by this Commission that the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum can pass interim relief which is in aid and assistant to the principal relief claimed looking to the strong prima facie case balance or convenience and inconvenience and irreparable loss to be sustained by either of the parties due to overt actions on either or their party.
So the learned C.D.F. considering the exigency of the matter that the complainant/respondent No. 1 had suffered disconnection due to no fault on his part directing to restore the electric line was rightly done in its proper spirit and subsequently fixed the date for adjudication of the inflated bills as alleged by the complainant/respondent No. 1. The allegation of the appellant about me relationship of Landlord and Tenant between the appellant and the complainant/respondent No. 1 is of no consequence, in view that the electric line of the complainant/ respondent No. 1 has been disconnected for no fault on his part for which the C.E.S.C. Ltd., respondent No. 2 being a statutory authority is liable to maintain supply to the consumer, the regular electricity which is the most essential service to a consumer.
5. IN view of the aforesaid position I find no wrong in the order passed by the learned C.D.F. and I uphold it. The matter is remanded back to the learned C.D.F. for taking further steps as per order dated 1.2.1994 passed in C.D.F. Case No. 130 of 1994. Mrs. S. Dutta, Member - I have gone through the views of both the learned President as well as the Member and I agree with the views of the learned Member. Order upheld.
