RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. PARAG ICE FACTORY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The District Forum, Ajmer by its order dated 2-3-1990 passed in Complaint Case No.209/89 directed the opposite parties-appellants to pay interest on the security amount at the rate which is payable by the Nationalized Banks on three years fixed deposit within a period of two months, otherwise opposite parties will be guilty of disobedience of the order of the District Forum. The Rajasthan State Electricity Board filed the appeal against that order before the State Commission which was registered as Appeal No.99/90. The State Commission dismissed the appeal on 19-6-1990. The RSEB filed Revision No.114/90 against the order dated 19-6-1990 passed by the State Commission. The revision was dismissed on 6-2-1991. The RSEB filed SLP No.10511/91 on 14-3- 1991. It also submitted an application that an interim order may be passed for staying the operation of the order dated 2-3-1990 passed by the District Forum, Ajmer. The Supreme Court of India by its order dated 9-8-1991 refused to stay the operation of the order. It, however, stayed the proceedings for disobedience. An application was submitted by the complainant-respondent on 19-8-1991 before the District Forum. The District Forum passed the following order on that application on 1-10-1991 (1) that RESB should pay Rs.36,182.51 on account of interest on the security amount within one month failing which this amount will be recovered from the opposite parties-appellants like a decree of a Civil Court and the opposite parties will be responsible for it. (2) that so far as proceedings for disobedience under Sec.27 of the Act are concerned, they will remain stayed.

(2.) An application was submitted on behalf of the RSEB on 30-10-1991 for reviewing the order dated 1-10-1991 passed by the District Forum. The District Forum recalled its order dated 1-10-1991 by its order dated 15-11-1991 but dismissed the application for review. It posted the case for reply of tile application dated 19-8-1991 of the complainant-respondent. The opposite parties-appellants submitted the reply. After hearing the arguments the District Forum passed the order dated 29-6-1992 that the RSEB should pay interest on the security amount of Rs.62,934/- at the rate which is payable on fixed deposits by the Nationalised Bank within one month from the date of order and that the complainant-respondent will be entitled to interest. It took judicial notice about the rate of interest which is payable by the Nationalised Banks on the fixed deposits which is 10% p. a. The amount of interest which was to be paid to the complainant-respondent for the period 3 years 10% p. a. came to Rs.20,831.15. The case as disclosed by the complainant was that despite specific order, the RSEB did not pay the amount and therefore the complainant-respondent was forced to file a fresh complaint/application as it constituted deficiency in service and the complainant -respondent is entitled to compensation. The District Forum by its order dated 29-6-1992 directed the opposite parties to pay Rs.1,000/- as compensation and Rs.500/- as costs within one month from the date of the order failing which the opposite parties would be guilty of disobedience. Against that the opposite parties have filed the appeal as stated above.

(3.) We heard Mr. R. K. Sharma, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. Sandeep Jain, Chief Executive for the respondent and carefully considered the order under appeal. It was submitted that the opposite parties did not pay the amount of interest on the security amount for the reason that the matter was subjudice before the Supreme Court of India and the Supreme Court in RSEB V/s. M/s. Alfa Alay Pvt. Ltd. passed the stay order in favour of RSEB. The SLP submitted in the case by the complainant was also fixed on the same day as is apparent from the order of the Supreme Court of India. It was submitted that there were adequate reasons for not paying the amount and therefore it is not a matter regarding deficiency in service. It was also submitted that the District Forum lost sight of the fact that final order in Complaint Case No.209/89 was passed on 2-3-1990 by the District Forum. However, an order in variance could not be passed in Complaint Case No.209/89 on 29-6-1992. The order passed on 2-3-1990 could be executed by making an application under Sec.25 of the Act or by initiating proceedings under Sec.27 of the Act. It was also pressed that the calculation of interest made by the District Forum is erroneous,