MANJUSHREE KHAITAN 10, CAMAC STREET, FIRST FLOOR KOLKATA Vs. THAKUR SINGH & 3 ORS. S/O. LATE CHANDRAMA SINGH, K.C. MILLS, LINE NO.7, QUARTER NO. 785, 42, GARDEN REACH ROAD, P.S. METIABRUZ KOLKATA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision petition filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the order dated 30.04.2014, passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission ) in Revision Petition No. RP/152/2013, Ms. Manjushree Khaitan of Industry House Vs. Sri Thakur Singh & Ors. has been challenged, vide which, while dismissing the said revision petition, the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum on 23.09.2013 in Consumer Complaint No. 293/2013, filed by the respondent no. 1, Thakur Singh was upheld.

(2.) Thakur Singh, respondent no. 1 filed consumer complaint no. 293/2013 before the District Forum against the CESE Ltd. (which is a company supplying electricity to the consumers) and the Kesoram Textiles (cotton) Mills Ltd., including the Managing Director, Manjushree Khaitan, the petitioner. He stated that he was an employee of the Kesoram Textiles Mills Pvt. Ltd. and was facing major problems due to lack of electricity supply, since the factory manager allowed the said supply from 8.00 pm to 3.30 am only. He had obtained application form from CESE Ltd. for obtaining an electricity connection for 24-hour supply, but could not submit the same to them, due to lack of NOC from the Kesoram Mills authorities. The complainant requested that the amount paid for getting electricity connection and further, a compensation of Rs. 90,000.00 should be paid to him. The said complaint is dated 18.07.2013, but subsequently, an amended complaint was filed by him on 18.10.2013, seeking directions to the OPs to provide electric connection to him and also, to give compensation of Rs. 90,000.00. During hearing on the said complaint, the petitioner/OP-4 filed an application for striking out her name from the array of parties. The District Forum, vide interim order dated 23.09.2013, refused to strike out her name, saying that her presence was necessary for adjudication of the case. The petitioner/OP-4 filed a revision petition before the State Commission, challenging the said order of the District Forum. Vide impugned order, the State Commission dismissed the said revision petition. It is against this order that the present petition has been filed before this Commission.

(3.) During hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner had filed an application before the District Forum stating that she was not the Managing Director of Kesoram Textiles Mills Ltd., nor did she had any relation with the said Company in official capacity or otherwise. The position was clear from the Annual Report and Accounts of the year 2012-2013 of the Company. The name of the petitioner should, therefore, have been deleted from the array of the parties in the consumer complaint.