C E S C LTD Vs. RAMJI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application under Sec.17 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act is directed against the order dated 6.1.94 passed by the Learned Calcutta District Forum in C. D. F. Case No.2496 of 1993. In the said impugned order it has been directed by the Ld. C. D. F. to accept payment of Rs.100/from the respondent against alleged dues to C. E. S. C. in addition to that it raised many disputes as stated in the revisional application and upon compliance of the requisites as demanded by the petitioner together with alleged arrear payments of Rs.18,878,52 to be made by the petitioner in order to restore the supply line of the respondent. The main point of the revisional application is that the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forums have no power and competency to pass any interim order.

(2.) In eariler occasions in S. C. Case No.171/rev. of 1994 Petitioner/w. B. S. E. V. V/s. Rajendra Show and in S. C. Case No.234/rev. of 1994 between W. B. S. E. B. V/s. Suhasaria Oil and Rice Mills, we have expressed our clear opinion by majority views that the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forums have the power to pass an interim order to maintain the property in statusquo until the right of the parties are finally decided, considering the exigency in the matter, prima facie case balance of convenience and the apprehension of irreparable loss to be caused by either of the parties due to overt act on their part. In the said case we discussed Morgan Stanley's case elaborately and the principles laid down therein for granting the interim order or ex-parte interim order as has been bid down by Their Lordships of the Apex Court in said Morgan Stanley's case. Had Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court any intention to prohibit or prevent the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum to grant interim order or ex-parte interim order, Their Lodships would not have taken so much trouble to discuss the principles of granting interim order or exparte interim order at length in the said Morgan Stanley's case. It is very much implied in the said Morgan Stanley's case that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had never intended to prevent the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum to grant interim order or ex-parte interim order one the basis of principles laid down by Their Lordships in the said case. Their Lordships only in the facts and circumstances of the Morgan Stanley's case and observing the conduct of the complainant disapproved the grant of interim order in that particular case when the dispute at all did not fall within scope and ambit of the Consumer Protection Act as discussed by Their Lordships therein and that grant of interim order also without consideration of balance of convenience. The Supreme Court only considered the four clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Sec.14 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act, while considering Morgan Stanley's case. So to our views as we have also observed that the Morgan Stanley's case did not prevent or prohibit the grant of interim or ex-parte interim order considering the prima facie case and balance of convenience and to save the party from perilous factor of irreparable injury which might come upon the party and that the in covenience likely to arise from withholding injunction will be greater which is likely to arise from granting it. In the said context, we also discussed that the amended provisions of clause (e) of the Consumer Protection Act which came into force from 18th January, 1993 armed the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums with weapons to remove the defects and deficiency in service in question in any matter and Hon'ble Supreme Court had no occasion to consider that clause newly inserted in the Consumer Protection Act as it reveals from the Judement of Morgan Sanley's case and that might have been due to failure on the part of the opposite party to bring into the notice of Hon'ble Supreme Court the said amended provisions of clause (e) of Sec.14 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act.

(3.) In the case of Monorama Tewari V/s. State of Rajasthan, 1992 2 CPJ 427 referred to by the petitioner, West Bengal State Electricity Board wherein the rario laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission is that the relief which cannot be granted under Sec.14 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act it cannot be granted by interlocutory order.