NIRMAL BANERJEE Vs. C E S C LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed against the order dated 10.7.2003 passed by the District Forum, South 24-Parganas in the Forum Case No.222 of 2003. By that order the Forum dismissed the complaint petition without admitting the same. The present appellant (Dr. Nirmal Banerjee) was the complainant before the Forum whereas the present respondent (C. E. S. C.) was the O. P. The relevant facts in brief are as under.

(2.) The complainant had earlier filed a Case No.50 of 2002 against the same O. P. before the Forum which was allowed by the Forum by its order dated 20.5.2002. While allowing the complaint case the Forum directed the O. P. to restore the electricity connection of the complainant within 10 days from the date of the order. However, the O. P. did not comply with the order within the stipulated period so that the complainant was forced to file an execution case (Execution Case No.38 of 2002 ). During the pendency of the execution case the O. P. complied with the order of the Forum and connection was restored on 25.8.2002. Accordingly the Forum by its order dated 6.9.2002 disposed of the execution case, observing that the penal provision under Sec.27 of the C. P. Act is not resorted to when the order of the Trial Forum has already been complied with. This observation was made by the Forum in the context of the decree holder's submission that when the order of the Trial Forum was not complied with by the J dr. initially, penal provision be resorted to. It is understood that the O. P. , C. E. S. C. filed an appeal with the State Commission against the order of the Trial Forum as referred to above, though that appeal was subsequently dismissed as not pressed. Be that as it may, the complainant filed a fresh complaint case before the Forum (Case No.222 of 2003) claiming compensation from the C. E. S. C. for his sufferings and harassment for the period from 30.5.2002 to 24.8.2002 during which he had to undergo extreme sufferings for want of restoration of electric line. While considering this complaint petition for admission the Forum observed that the case was not maintainable as it did not relate to any pending dispute case. The Forum also observed that the order which was allegedly not complied with for some period thereby causing harassment to the complainant had already been complied with by the O. P. and there was no longer any basis for award of compensation. Accordingly the Forum dismissed the complaint petition without admitting the same with the observation that the complainant had no real dispute which is legally entertainable. The complainant has come in appeal before the Commission against this order of the Forum.

(3.) In the memo of appeal the appellant has stressed the point that the case in which the impugned order was passed was for a new cause of action relating to a period subsequent to the period for which decision had been given by the Forum earlier in the Forum Case No.50 of 2002. It has been pleaded by the appellant that the O. P. /respondent committed deficiency in service and resorted to unfair trade practice by delaying the compliance of the order of the Trial Forum by about three months. The appellant has prayed for setting aside the impugned order and for directing the Forum to admit his complaint and to try the case as per the provisions of the C. P. Act.