Back
WEST BENGAL STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CALCUTTA
Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.C. Datta, President &
Mr. D. Karforma, Member
R.K. Mishra—Appellant
versus
COMMERCIAL EXECUTIVE CESC LTD.—Respondent
S.C. Case No. 605/A of 1998—Decided on 26.4.2000
Courts may uphold orders for deposit of outstanding dues if found reasonable and decline to vary the order without evidence of payment.
Headnote:
Deposit - Outstanding Dues - The court upheld the direction for the complainant to deposit 40% of the outstanding dues, finding it not excessive and declining to vary the order due to lack of evidence of payment.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant was directed to deposit 40% of the outstanding dues within 15 days, and the matter was referred for adjudication testing of the meter.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the impugned order and finding no grounds for interference.
Issues: Dispute over the percentage of outstanding dues to be deposited and the appellant's request for a lesser percentage.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found the 40% direction not excessive and declined to vary the order due to lack of evidence of payment.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed on contest.
Mr. Justice S.C. Datta, President—Heard learned Lawyers for both sides. By the impugned order dated 23.11.1998, 24.11.1998 the complainant was directed to deposit 40% of the outstanding dues which was admittedly Rs. 61,000/- and/odd representing the arrears in payment of bills for the period from June, 1991 to December, 1991 within a period of 15 days from the date of the order. The Forum also directed the matter to be referred to C.E.I., West Bengal for adjudication testing of the meter. Learned Lawyer appearing for the appellant submits that the direction of the Forum regarding deposit of 40% of the outstanding dues is too excessive. He prays that an order may be issued directing payment at a lesser percentage. We have anxiously considered the submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellant. It appears that the order was passed in November, 1998 and there is no material to show that any payment in pursuance of this order has since been made by this appellant. In these circumstances, we are not inclined to vary the order. The impugned order does not require any interference by this Commission.
2. The appeal is dismissed on contest.
Appeal dismissed.
–––
