Sunday, October 29, 2023

THE INTEREST ON DELAYED PAYMENT TO SMALLSCALE AND ANCILLARY INDUSTRIAL UNDER-TAKING ACT, 1993

No.32 OF 1993

CONTENTS

1. Short title, extent and commencement.

2. Definitions.

3. Liability of buyer to make payment.

4. Date from which and rate at which interest is payable.

5. Recovery of amount due.

6. Liability of buyer to pay compound interest.

7. Appeal.

8. Requirement to specify unpaid amount with interest in the annual statement of accounts.

9. Interest not to be allowed as deduction from income.

10. Overriding effect.

11. Repeal and saving.

[2nd April, 1993.]

An Act to provide for and regulate the payment of interest on delayed payments to small scale and ancillary industrial undertaking and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.

BE it enacted by Parliament in the forty-fourth Year of the Republic of India as follows:-

1. Short title, extent and commencement.

(1) This Act may be called the Interest on Delayed Payments tot Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993.

(2) It extends to the whole of India, except the State of Jammu and Kashmir.

(3) It shall be deemed to have come into force on the 23rd day of September, 1992.

2. Definitions.

In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, -

(a) "Ancillary industrial undertaking" has the meaning assigned to it by clause (aa) of section 3 of the Industries (Development and Regulation ) Act, 1951; (65 of 1951)

(b) "Appointed day, means the day following immediately after the expiry of the period of thirty days from the day of acceptance or the day of deemed acceptance of any goods or any services by a buyer from a supplier.

Explanation,- For the purposes of this clause, -

(i) 'The day of acceptance' means, -

(a) The day of the actual delivery of goods or the rendering of services; or

(b) Where any objection is made in writing by the buyer regarding acceptance of goods or services within thirty days from the day of the delivery of goods or the rendering of services, the day on which such objection is removed by the supplier;

(ii) 'The day of deemed acceptance' means, where no objection is made in writing by the buyer regarding acceptance of goods or services within thirty days from the day of the delivery of goods or the rendering of services, the day of the actual delivery of goods or the rendering of services;

(d) 'Goods’ means every kind of movable property other than actionable claims and money;

(e) 'Small scale industrial undertaking' has the meaning assigned to it by clause (j) of section 3 of the Industrial (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951; (65 of 1951)

(f) 'Supplier’ means an ancillary industrial undertaking or a small scale industrial undertaking holding a permanent registration certificate issued by the Directorate of Industries of a State or Union territory.

3. Liability of buyer to make payment.

Where any supplier supplies any goods or renders any services to any buyer, the buyer shall make payment therefore on or before the date agreed upon between him and the supplier in writing or, where there is no agreement in this behalf, before the appointed day.

4. Date from which and rate at which interest is payable.

Where any buyer fails to make payment of the amount to the supplier, as required under section 3 the buyer shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any agreement between the buyer and the supplier or in any law for the time being in force, be liable to pay interest to the supplier on that amount from the appointed day or, as the case may be, from the day immediately following the date agreed upon, at such rate which is five per cent. points above the floor rate for comparable lending.

Explanation. For the purposes of this section, 'floor rate for comparable lending' means the highest of the minimum lending rates charged by scheduled banks (not being co-operative banks) on credit limits in accordance with the directions given or issued to banking companies generally by the Reserve Bank of India under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949.(10 of 1949).

5. Recovery of amount due.

Notwithstanding anything contained in any agreement between a supplier and a buyer or in any law for the time being in force, the buyer shall be liable to play compound interest (with monthly interest) at the rate mentioned in section 4 on the amount due to the supplier.

6. Liability of buyer to pay compound interest.

The amount due from a buyer, together with the amount of interest calculated in accordance with the provisions of section 4 and 5.shall be recoverable by the supplier from the buyer by way of a suit of other proceeding under any law for the time being in force.

7. Appeal.

No appeal against any decree, award or other order shall be entertained by any court or other authority unless the appellant (not being a supplier) has deposited with it seventy-five per cent.of the amount in terms of the decree, award or, as the case may be, other order in the manner directed by such court or, as the case may be, such authority.

8. Requirement to specify unpaid amount with interest in the annual statement of accounts.

Where any buyer is required to get his annual accounts audited under any law for the time being in force, such buyer shall specify the amount together with the interest in his annual statement of accounts as remains unpaid to any supplier at the end of each accounting year.

9. Interest not to be allowed as deduction from income.

Notwithstanding anything contained in the Income-tax Act, 1961, (43 of 1961) the amount of interest payable or paid by nay buyer, under or in accordance with the provisions of this Act, shall not, for the purposes of computation of income under the Income-tax Act, 1961, be allowed as deduction.

10. Overriding effect.

The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force.

11. Repeal and saving.

(1) The Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Ordinance, 1993 (Ord.4 of 1993) is hereby repealed.

(2) Notwithstanding such repeal, anything done or any action taken under the Ordinance so repealed shall be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of this Act.

Class Action Suit: by Consumers has become a reality to happen in India, with order of Apex Consumer Commission and Apex Court of India

Class Action Suit: by Consumers has become a reality to happen in India, with order of Apex Consumer Commission and Apex Court of India.

>>> The Supreme Court of India upheld a decision by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) to allow flat buyers to jointly approach it in case of a dispute with a builder, allowing home buyers to leapfrog lower Forums: District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, and approach the National (Apex) consumer commission (NCDRC), directly.

It also made it clear that the pecuniary jurisdiction is to be determined on the basis of the aggregate of the value of the products or service rendered to the consumers.

As on date, if the value of the suit is Rs 1 crore or more, the jurisdiction lies with the NCDRC. Less than Rs 1 crore but more than Rs 20 lakh, the jurisdiction is with the respective state forum and less than Rs 20 lakh with the respective district forum.

>>> Dated: 21st FEBRUARY, 2017; Supreme Court of India:

“These people have trusted in your business. And you want them to go to the state or district forum,”

The Apex Court bench headed by Justice Dipak Mishra told the company’s (real estate developer Amrapali ) counsel, Rakesh Kumar.

Thus: The Supreme Court empowers Home Buyers Association to file case against unfair developers. Home Buyers Associations can now collectively file cases in NCDRC.

Hence: As held by: The Apex consumer forum: (NCDRC):“Class Action” suits can be entertained under the Consumer Protection (CP) Act.

>>> The ruling opens the doors for others stuck with delayed flats to approach the apex panel in a similar manner.

In a case of individuals who bought flats from real estate developer Amrapali, the panel allowed multiple individuals to club their cases to cross the `Rupees: 1crore, ceiling.

The developer had challenged the decision at the apex court.

Disputes between buyers and sellers need to be first raised at state- or district-level consumer rights panels, where they are usually stuck for a while.

The national panel can be approached only for appeals or if the total value of the disputed deal crosses Rupees: 1 crore.

>>> The NCDRC ( National Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum) had held that under Section 12 (1) (c) of the CP Act ( Consumer Protection Act) a group of consumers having a common interest or a common grievance seeking same relief against the same person can file the ‘class action suit’.

Different regulations may have a different requirement for filing it, but generally more than one person can file it.

The government-Nestle legal battle is the first instance of a class action suit filed in the country by the Department of Consumer Affairs, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution, citing the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Class action: is simply filing a law suit in a larger group instead of individual suits where there are numerous persons having the same interest in that suit.

A class action suit can also be filed under Section 91, Order 1 Rule 8 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908.

However different statutes may have different provisions for filing suit.

http://ncdrc.nic.in/bare_acts/Consumer%20Protection%20Act-1986.html

http://www.vakilno1.com/bareacts/laws/civil-procedure-code-1908.html

>>> Principles of consumer protection are provided under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which is primarily based on principles of "unfair trade practice"

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986:

2. Definitions. - (1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires:

(r) "unfair trade practice" means a trade practice which, for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of any goods or for the provision of any service, adopts any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice including any of the following practices, namely;

12. Manner in which complaint shall be made.—(1) A complaint in relation to any goods sold or delivered or agreed to be sold or delivered or any service provided or agreed to be provided may be filed with a District Forum by –

(c) one or more consumers, where there are numerous consumers having the same interest, with the permission of the District Forum, on behalf of, or for the benefit of, all consumers so interested; or

http://ncdrc.nic.in/bare_acts/Consumer%20Protection%20Act-1986.html

>>> Those buying, or those who have paid money as booking amount for their flats in various housing societies, can collectively sue a builder if he errs in keeping his declared promises.

The NCDRC has gone a step ahead to hold that date of booking, allotment, purchase of the flat would be wholly irrelevant in such a complaint.

>>> It shall be pertinent to go thru the whole decision by full bench of NCDRC president DK Jain, members VK Jain and BC Gupta, while settling the issue of class action suit, that laid:: a complaint under Section 12 (1) (c) of the Act can be filed on behalf of or for the benefit of all the consumers, having a common interest or a common grievance seeking the same and similar relief against the same person.

Case No. CC/819/2016

Dated : 30 Aug 2016

ORDER

IA/7247,7249,7251 & 7253 /2016 (Maintainability of Complaint)

These are the applications filed by the opposite party, namely, Amrapali Sapphire Developers Pvt. Ltd.

The applicant is seeking dismissal of the complaint primarily on the grounds that (i) the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint on behalf of several allottees each of whom has a separate and distinct cause of action (ii) the complainant is not a voluntary consumer association (iii) since the sale consideration for each flat was less than Rs.1 crore, this Commission lacks the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

2. Section 12 (1) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act reads as under:-

“Manner in which complaint shall be made.—(1) A complaint in relation to any goods sold or delivered or agreed to be sold or delivered or any service provided or agreed to be provided may be filed with a District Forum by –

(b) any recognised consumer association whether the consumer to whom the goods sold or delivered or agreed to be sold or delivered or service provided or agreed to be provided is a member of such association or not;”

It would thus be seen that a complaint can be instituted by a recognized consumer association even if the consumer to whom the goods are sold or delivered or agreed to be sold or services are provided or agreed to be provided is a member of such an Association or not.

3. The first question which arises for consideration is as to whether the complainant is a recognized consumer association or not. The explanation below section 12 provides that for the purpose of the said section recognized consumer association means any voluntary consumer association registered under the Companies Act or any other law for the time being in force.

This would mean that if a voluntary consumer association is registered under any law for the time-being in force, it will be deemed to be a recognized consumer association for the purpose of filing a complaint in terms of section 12(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act. No separate recognition is required in such a case, nor does the Act contain any provision for recognizing a Voluntary Consumer Association.

Admittedly, the complainant is registered under Societies Registration Act. Therefore, the first requirement of the explanation stands fulfilled.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that mere registration under the Societies Registration Act or any other for the time being does not amount to recognition of a consumer association. His contention is that since Bureau of Indian Standards (Recognition of Consumers Associations) Rules 1991 lay down the procedure for recognition of consumer associations, the said procedure is required to be followed and a certificate of recognition is to be obtained from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Consumer Affairs in terms of the aforesaid rules.

I, however, find no merit in this contention.

As noted earlier, as per the explanation below section 12, recognized consumer association means any voluntary consumer association registered under Companies Act or any other law for the time being in force. Once a voluntary consumer association is registered in the aforesaid manner, it will be deemed to be a recognized consumer association provided that it is otherwise a voluntary association of the consumers.

The recognition from the Govt. of India in terms of the BIS Rules or any other rules framed under any other act, in my view, is not envisaged in the Consumer Protection Act.

Therefore, I find no merit in the contention.

4. The second question which then arises is as to whether the complainant can be said to be a voluntary consumer association or not. The term ‘voluntary consumer association’ has not been defined in the Consumer Protection Act.

Giving an ordinary meaning to it, the expression voluntary consumer association would mean that the association in question should be an organization of consumers and the membership of the organization should not be compulsory.

5. As per clause 4 of the Memorandum of Association of the complainant, its aims and objectives inter-alia include the following:-

“(i) To protect the collective interest of the registered members of the Association;

(ii) To protect interest of the members by representing the Association at various relevant forums, appropriate government, quasi government, judicial, statutory and other relevant bodies, including local municipal bodies, authorities, builders, developers, association of builders and developers and other organizations which may impact the members monetarily or otherwise and take all such steps as may be necessary in this regard;

(iii) To perform such other legal and lawful acts that may be necessary for the members of the Association;

(iv) To work for the wellbeing and safety of the members of the Association, who are owners of residential / commercial plot(s) on anywhere in India;

(v) To project, protect and pursue all matters in the collective interests of members with the society or needy persons including timely delivery and possession of plots;

(vi) To do all acts, matters and things as are incidental or conductive to the attainment of the above aims and objects, or any one or more of them”

Considering the above-referred aims and objectives of the complainants’ society, it would be difficult to dispute that it has been set up for the purpose of protecting the interests of consumers including flat/plot buyers.

Such an organization, in my opinion, qualifies as a consumer association. Since its membership is voluntary and it is registered under the Societies Registration Act, the complainant is a recognized consumer association in terms of the explanation below section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Therefore, I find no merit in the first ground taken in the application.

6. The next ground taken in the application is that since the value and the services, i.e., the sale consideration of the flats in each case is less than Rs.1 crore, this Commission lacks the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

This is also the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant/opposite party that the complainant cannot club the individual causes of action available to each flat buyer.

In my view, section 12 (1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act does not preclude the recognized consumer association from filing a composite complaint on behalf of more than one consumers, having a similar grievance against the seller of the goods or the provider of the services, as the case may be.

There is nothing in the aforesaid provision which would restrict its application to the complaint pertaining to an individual complainant.

If a recognized consumer association is made to file multiple complaints in respect of several consumers having a similar cause of action, that would result only in multiplicity of proceedings without serving any useful purpose.

In CC No. 250 of 2014 – Atharva Towers Owners Association Vs. M/s Raheja Developers Ltd., an association of consumers filed a complaint espousing the cause of as many as 43 members. An application seeking permission of this Commission to add members/allottees of the association to the complaint was filed. The application having been opposed, this Commission vide order dated 5.11.2014 allowed the impleadment after excluding the prayers (e), (f) and (g) of the complaint, but granting liberty to those persons to file individual complaints. Being aggrieved from the order passed by this Commission, the complainant association approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of Civil Appeal No.10602 of 2014. Vide its order dated 14.3.2016, the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed that since the dispute was pending before this Commission, it would be appropriate if prayers (e), (f) and (g) are also considered and this Commission looks into the grievances of each of the flat owners individually in respect of those particular prayers. Each flat owners was directed to file an affidavit setting out his or her grievance concerning prayers (e), (f) and (g). In view of the above-referred decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it would not be correct to say that a complaint by a voluntary consumer association on behalf of more than one consumers, having a similar cause of action against the same seller of goods or provider of services, will be not maintainable. The only requirement would be to direct each and every allottee on whose behalf the complaint is filed to file an affidavit concerning the prayers to the extent they pertain to his individual grievances.

Once it is accepted that a consumer complaint on behalf of more than then consumers can be filed by a recognized consumer association, it can hardly be disputed that it is the aggregate value of the services which has to be taken for the purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of the consumer forum before which the complaint is filed.

A reference in this regard can be made to the decision rendered by a 4-Members Bench of this Commission in Public Health Engineering Department Vs. Upbhokta Sanrakshan Samiti, I (1992) CPJ 182 (NC). In that case a complaint, seeking to recover compensation for the negligence resulting in thousands of persons getting infected in a city was filed. The State Commission took the view that the complaint ought to have been filed before the District Forum. Setting aside the said order, this Commission inter-alia held, as under:

“5. In our opinion this proposition is clearly wrong since under the terms of Section 11 of the Act the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum would depend upon the quantum of compensation claimed in the petition. The view expressed by the State Commission is not based on a correct understanding or interpretation of Section 11. On the plain words used in Section 11 of the Act, the aggregate quantum of compensation claimed in the petition will determine the question of jurisdiction and when the complaint is filed in a representative capacity on behalf of several persons, as in the present case, the total amount of compensation claimed by the representative body on behalf of all the persons whom it represents will govern the valuation of the complaint petition for purposes of jurisdiction.

6. The quantum of compensation claimed in the petition being far in excess of Rs. 1lakh the District Forum was perfectly right in holding that it had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the complaint. The reversal of the said order by the State Commission was contrary to law. The Order of the State Commission is accordingly set aside, and the order passed by the District Forum directing the return of the Complaint Petition to the petitioner for being presented to the competent forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, will stand resorted. No costs”.

If the aggregate value of the services in respect of the flat buyers on whose behalf this complaint is filed is taken exceeds Rs.1 crore. Therefore, this Commission does possession the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

For the reasons stated hereinabove, these applications are dismissed.

CC/816 to 819 of 2016

Written version is stated to have been filed.

Rejoinder be filed within two weeks. Affidavit of admission/denial of the documents shall be filed by both the parties within four weeks from today. The complainant shall file affidavit by way of evidence within six weeks from today. Such an affidavit by the opposite party can be filed within next four weeks.

List for directions on 03.11.2016.


......................J
V.K. JAIN
PRESIDING MEMBER

Dated : 14 Feb 2017

ORDER

Affidavit by way of evidence has not been filed by the OP. Be filed within one week from today. The matter is coming up before the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 21.02.2017.

List for directions on 27.03.2017.


......................J
V.K. JAIN
PRESIDING MEMBER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

NEW DELHI


CONSUMER CASE NO. 816,817,818,819 OF 2016

WITH
IA/4597/2016,IA/4598/2016,IA/5646/2016,IA/7246/2016,IA/7247/2016,IA/8126/2016,IA/10665/2016,IA/10666/2016

of Complainant: AMRAPALI SAPPHIRE FLAT BUYERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION

104, HIGHLAND APARTMENT, VASUNDHARA ENCLAVE, DELHI-110096

...........Complainant(s)

Versus

Opp Party(s)

-AMRAPALI SAPPHIRE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.

-M/S. ULTRA HOMES CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD.

BEFORE:
	HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN,PRESIDING MEMBER

>>> IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.10882 OF 2016

M/S. AMRAPALI SAPPHIRE DEVELOPER PVT. LTD. Appellant(s)

VERSUS

M/S. AMRAPALI SAPPHIRE FLAT BUYERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION Respondent(s)

WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.10954 OF 2016

CIVIL APPEAL NO.10979 OF 2016 CIVIL APPEAL NO.11094 OF 2016

( Appealed Against Case No CCN 819/16

NATIONAL CONSUMERS DISPUTES REDDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI)

O R D E R

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order(s) passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi.

The civil appeals are accordingly dismissed. ........................

J. (DIPAK MISRA) ........................

J. (A.M. KHANWILKAR) .......................

.J. (MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR)

NEW DELHI;

21st FEBRUARY, 2017.

http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/casestatus_new/querycheck_page2.asp

>>> Thus: Gone are the times when aggrieved home buyer did not have an option but to give in to builder’s illegal demands.

Builders also find it difficult to silence individuals when confronted as groups.

Home buyers should get their group registered to form a registered, collective and legal body.

Human Rights

“To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity “ so said Nelson Mandela.

It is undeniable that human rights violation is one of the most challenging issue in the world. The term human right is a dynamic concept. Human rights are the basic natural rights for the peaceful survival of the people. The expression “Human Right” denotes all those rights, which are inherent in our nature without which we cannot live as a human being. violation of human rights is a global phenomenon . Now even after 70 –years of independence, India still continues to suffer from significant human right violation, despite of framing of many laws and policies and promising and making commitment to tackle the problems. The principal objective of both India and international laws is to protect the human personality and its fundamental rights.

Analysis

In order to understand Human Rights Violation, we need to first understand the definition of human right which is defined under section 2 (d) of the Protection of human right act 1993 which says:- human rights as the rights relating to life , liberty, equality and dignity of individual guaranteed by the constitution or embodied in the international covenants and enforceable by court of india. The universal declaration of human right has emphasized that it is an obligation of state to ensure every one the right to adequate food,education and right to enjoy highest attainable standards of physical and mental health in our society. Human right may be called the basic right, the fundamental right, the natural right or the inherent rights. Our constitution safe guard the human rights , but in spite of all such provision the violation of human rights taking place frequently in society. Cases of child marriage, domestic violence , dowry, sexual harassment child abuse, child labour ,custodial violence have become rampant in the society.

Numerous studied have consistently found that in India majority of the people are illiterate, poor and exploited where violations human rights are bound to be more; but where the people are educated , advance, they are likely to be less prone to in human treatment and exploitation. Apart from the various schemes,laws,acts launchched by government still in many areas continued to fall short both with respect of legal reform and implementation. Government still needs to pay more attention towards their laws and policies and check whether it is properly carried out.

The role of Nationa human right commission is appreciable. The commission has grabbed the problem a little but canot be blamed for its failure as the entire society is involved in this violence.The proper implementation of the human right act also need full cooperation of the government and non government agencies. Of course , realisation of human rights cannot be achieved solely through legislation and administration arrangements. In recognition of this fact ,commission are often entrusted with the important responsibility of improving community awareness of human rights.

Conclusion

There is a dire need to sensitize the women, children, youth and various other communities of the people to spread about human rights and different ways to break its shackles. finally it should be noted that a human right commission is not a prerequisite for a government to uphold the human rights of its citizens. Other state institution such as an independent of judiciary ,or a representative legislation ,can equally provided oversight to ensure recourse and redress to human right abuses.

No nhrc,government ,ngo and specialization agencies can protect fully the human right cases in every cornor of the country, but we the people should be united and create awareness in the society regarding the eternal values of life ,personal liberty and dignity of individual so that it will minimized the human right cases in the country.

The right of every man are diminished when the right of one man are threatened.

the human right is not one what some one give you .........

it is what no one can take away your human right

Wednesday, October 18, 2023

Order in Electricity Bill by the Consumer Commission

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST BENGAL

11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087

First Appeal No. A/453/2018

( Date of Filing : 10 May 2018 )

(Arisen out of Order Dated 29/01/2018 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/68/2015 of District Burdwan)

1. West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd.

Panagarh Gr. Electric Supply, P.O. - Panagarh, P.S.- Kanksa, Dist. Burdwan rep. by Station Manager.

2. (O & M) Division of WBSEDCL

City Centre, Durgapur, Dist. Burdwan rep. by Divi. Manager.

3. W.B.S.E.D.C.L

Bidyut Bhavan, Salt Lake, Kolkata - 700 091, rep. by Chairman.

...........Appellant(s)

Versus

1. Sri Biplab Hazra

S/o Lt. Kartick Hazra, Ayama, P.O. - Shilampur, Dist. Burdwan, Pin - 713 169.

...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
	HON'BLE MR. AJEYA MATILAL PRESIDING MEMBER
	HON'BLE MRS. SOMA BHATTACHARJEE MEMBER

PRESENT:	Mr. Suvendu Das, Advocate for the Appellant 1

Dated : 01 Mar 2023

Final Order / Judgement

Hon’ble Mr. Ajeya Matilal, Presiding Member

The Ld. Advocate for the appellant is present. None appears on behalf of the respondent on repeated calls. It is now 12:45 PM.

So the matter is taken up for hearing.

Heard the Ld. Advocate for the appellant.

Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with judgment dt. 29.01.2018 passed by Ld. DCDRF, Burdwan allowing the complaint case no. CC/68/2015 on contest and directing the OPs to pay Rs. 2000/- only as compensation for illegal disconnection of the electric service of the complainant and also directing the OPs to reconnect to Consumer ID no. 500418850 used by the claimant within 15 days, appellants/OPs preferred this appeal.

The fact of the case as per petition of complaint is like that the respondent/complainant was a consumer having an electric connection being service connection no. 500418850 and Consumer No. C074887 for domestic purpose. The appellant no. 1, West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. Panagarh Group Electric Supply sent a bill in respect of aforesaid connection on 10.01.2014 for Rs. 472/- and due date of payment was January, 2014. Thereafter, the appellant no. 1 sent a bill dt. 09.04.2014 for Rs. 468/- and due date was April, 2014. According to the respondent/complainant there was no possibility of raising any other bill. So, the complainant contacted the appellant/OP no. 1 as according to the complainant no other bill was pending. The complainant took up the matter with the authorities concerned. But subsequently, his electric line was disconnected. So the complainant filed the instant case. The OP contested the case. Both sides adduced evidence. Perused the material on record.

The point for consideration is that whether the impugned order suffers from any illegality.

The case of the appellants/OPs is like that there was another electric connection having Consumer ID no. 514042573 in the premises of the complainant at village Ayama, P.O. Shilampur and the said electric connection was disconnected on 18.10.2011 due to outstanding bills of Rs. 6167/-for the period of June, 2010 to December, 2011. But the complainant took the present connection in the said premises on 31.12.2012 without making payment of the claimed outstanding amount against the said disconnected meter. So, a notice was served upon the complainant vide memo no. PCC/Revenue/13-14/6245 dt. 31.03.2014. In spite of receiving the same, the complainant did not make any payment. So, the aforesaid connection was disconnected.

The Ld. Advocate for the appellant referred to Rule 3.5.1 of West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission vide notification no. 55/WBERC Kolkata dt. 07.08.2013.

The rule goes like that “In case there is any dispute in respect of the billed amount, the consumer may lodge a complaint with the Grievance Redressal Officer or the Central Grievance Redressal Officer of the licensee and thereafter to the Ombudsman in appeal against the order of the Grievance Redressal Officer or the Central Grievance Redressal Officer, if the consumer is aggrieved by the order of the Grievance Redressal Officer or the Central Grievance Redressal Officer, in accordance with the provisions of the concerned Regulations. In such case, the aggrieved consumer, pending disposal of the dispute, may under protest, pay the lesser amount out of the following two options:-

An amount equal to the sum claimed from him in the disputed bill, or
An amount equal to the electricity charges due from him for each month calculated on the basis of average charge for electricity paid by him during the preceding six months,

The amount so calculated provisionally as per clause (ii) above by the licensee and tendered by the consumer shall be accepted by the licensee against that bill on provisional basis.”

So it appears from this discussion that the matter relates to billing dispute and the matter should have been referred to the Central Grievance Redressal Officer of Licensee working at the office of the appellant no. 1.

It transpires from this discussion that the complainant has chosen an inappropriate forum namely DCDRC, Burdwan for redressal of his grievances. So, the impugned order suffers from illegality and it cannot be sustained and requires to be set aside.

Accordingly, the appeal being no. 453/2018 is allowed ex parte against the respondent without any costs. The impugned order is set aside.

Liberty is given to the respondent/complainant to approach the G.R.O concerned within 60 days from this order for redressal of his grievances. The G.R.O is directed to dispose of the application if filed by the respondent /complainant as per rules.

[HON'BLE MR. AJEYA MATILAL]

PRESIDING MEMBER

[HON'BLE MRS. SOMA BHATTACHARJEE]

MEMBER

order in housing matter by consumer commission

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST BENGAL

11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087

Complaint Case No. CC/561/2016

( Date of Filing : 14 Dec 2016 )

1. Gobinda Ghosh

S/o Lt. Kamala Shankar Ghosh, 1/3, CIT Scheme no.VII-M, CMDA Abasan Ultadanga, Block-H, Flat no.29, 2nd Floor, Kolkata -700 054.

2. Mrs. Maya Ghosh

W/o Gobinda Ghosh, 1/3, CIT Scheme no.VII-M, CMDA Abasan Ultadanga, Block-H, Flat no.29, 2nd Floor, Kolkata -700 054.

...........Complainant(s)

Versus

1. M/s. Basukinath Abasan Pvt. Ltd.

19, Amartalla Street, Kolkata - 700 001.

2. Siddhartha Churiwala, Dirctor, M/s. Basukinath Abasan Pvt. Ltd.

19, Amartalla Street, Kolkata - 700 001.

............Opp.Party(s)

BEFORE:
	HON'BLE MR. AJEYA MATILAL PRESIDING MEMBER
	HON'BLE MRS. SOMA BHATTACHARJEE MEMBER

PRESENT:	Mr. Hirak Kumar Basu, Advocate for the Complainant 1

Dated : 03 Mar 2023

Final Order / Judgement

Hon’ble Mr. Ajeya Matilal, Presiding Member

Today is fixed for final hearing of the case.

Ld. Advocate for the complainant is present. None appears on behalf of the OPs on repeated calls. It is now 1:00 PM. The case is proceeding ex parte against the OP.

This a case u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

The complainants filed this case against the OPs with a prayer for execution of deed of conveyance in respect of the scheduled flat along with prayer for compensation and legal expenses.

The fact of the case is in short like that the OP No. 1 is a Pvt. Ltd. Company and the OP no. 2 is the Director of the OP no. 1/company. The OPs made an announcement for sale of a flat at Trinetra Apartment situated at No. 4E premises no. 61 Sukumar Ghosh Road (previously old Nimta Road) on the 4^th floor, North Eastern Side measuring an area of 935 sq. ft. approximately including super built up area.

The flat is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of North 24 Parganas.

In this context an agreement for sale was executed by and between the complainants and OPs /developers. In terms of the agreement dt. 26.11.2010 the total consideration was Rs.12,15,500/-. The complainant paid Rs.12,15,500/- by different cheques. Furthermore, the complainants paid further sum of Rs. 13,000/- and 5,000/- for extra works and Rs. 2,800/- for incidental charges. As per agreement last day of April, 2011 was fixed for possession and registration of the flat along with a grace period of 6 months. The OPs already delivered possession of the said flat to the complainant but they did not execute and register the deed of conveyance as per agreement. In this context the complainants served legal notice on the OPs on 10.05.2016. But it did not yield any positive result. So, the complainants have filed this case. Complainants file some money receipts.

The OPs initially contested the case by filing a W.V denying the material allegations of the claim petition along with some technical pleas. In para no. 12, page no. 3 of the W.V the OPs admitted that they were still ready and willing to perform their contractual obligations. The complainants adduced their evidence by way of affidavit. The evidence was not challenged by OPs by way of cross-examination.

Perused the materials on record. Considered.

It would reveal from page 13 of the agreement that Rs. 12,15,500/- was payable by the complainant. It would reveal from the W.V that payment of consideration money has not been disputed by the OPs.

It appears from the aforesaid discussions that the complainant is a consumer and as per agreement for sale he paid up the entire consideration money and he also made some extra payments for extra works. Although the OPs delivered the possession of the scheduled flat to the complainant but he did not execute and register any deed of conveyance. The complaint was filed on 26.12.2016 within the statutory period and it appears that there is cause of action for filing the complaint and there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and the complainants are entitled to relief as prayed for. So the case succeeds.

Hence it is ordered

The complaint case being no. 561/2016 is allowed ex parte against the Opposite Parties with a litigation cost of Rs. 15,000/- and compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- payable to the complainants. The Opposite Parties are directed to execute and register a deed of conveyance in respect of the scheduled flat of the petition of complaint in favour of the complainants and to pay the litigation cost and compensation to the complainants within 90 days from the date of this order, failing which, the complainants will be at liberty to put the order into execution.

[HON'BLE MR. AJEYA MATILAL]

PRESIDING MEMBER

[HON'BLE MRS. SOMA BHATTACHARJEE]

MEMBER