Back
2012(3) CPR 176
HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA
Chander Shekhar Sharma, Presiding Member and Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Member
H.P. State Electricity Board
& Anr. —Petitioners
versus
Vishwas Sharma & Anr. —Respondents
Revision Petition No. 10 of 2011
Decided on 29.9.2011
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioners:Bhagwan Chand, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Peeyush Verma, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 2:Rajesh Verma, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Procedure under Section 13(4) of C.P. Act is a procedure vis-a-vis civil suit for deciding complaint.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 13(4)—Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 26, Rule 9 read with Section 141—Electricity—Appointment of Local Commissioner(Advocate) for making enquiry into electrical connection—Procedure under Section 13(4) which is to be applied by Fora is a procedure vis-a-vis civil suit for deciding complaint—These powers are to be exercised while case is being tried as a suit—But, since State Commission had appointed Local Commissioner during proceedings in a revision petition for its satisfaction, Commission was not trying the matter as suit/complaint, as such these provisions are not applicable in present case since they are only applicable in a case when matter is being tried as a suit—Petition dismissed. (Paras 7 to 10)
Result: Petition dismissed.
‘ Chander Shekhar Sharma, Presiding Member—This order will dispose of M.A. No.553/2011 which was filed on behalf of respondent No.2 for calling the Local Commissioner for cross- examination.
2. Brief Facts giving rise to the present application are that on 25.8.2011, this Commission had passed order for appointment of Local Commissioner Shri S.R. Sharma, Advocate, who was directed to visit the spot and give clear report to the effect whether any electricity connection/extension was provided before 26.5.2011 in the shop run by respondent No.1 in the name and style of M/s Whistle Apparel, Shop No.2, Sheela Bhawan, Lihantu Building near Bus Stand, Sanjauli, Shimla-6.
3. During the course of arguments the contention of the petitioner and respondent No.2 were to the effect that Shri Vishwas Sharma who is stated to be a tenant of Smt. Susheela Lihantu, had not been provided any electricity connection for his ready-made garments shop in the name of M/s Whistle Apparel, Shop No.2, Sheela Bhawan, Lihantu Building, near Bus Stand, Sanjauli, whereas respondent No.1, Shri Vishwas Sharma contended that this electricity connection was disconnected on 26.5.2011 which he was enjoying for the last 8 years and this fact was denied by the petitioner as well as by respondent No.2.
4. Mr. S.R. Sharma, Local Commissioner has submitted his report to this Commission on 29.8.2011 wherein he had concluded that under the facts and circumstances and statement of witnesses produced by the parties, it is clear that there used to be electric light before 26.5.2011 although electricity connection was not there but extension of light is there before 26.5.2011 in the demised premises which is being used by Shri Vishwas Sharma for running his ready-made garments shop and this fact is also apparent from his report that there is a basement wiring in the entire demised premises and said wire comes from floor below through the slab in which owner lives and is connected to MCB Box and this old MCB Box is very old and seems to have been installed much before 26.5.2011.
5. Objection to this report were also filed on behalf of HPSEB and also by respondent No.2. Respondent No.1 had alleged in the objection that the Local Commissioner had not recorded the statement of Shri Hardeep Singh and Shri Tek Chand Thakur in the presence of representatives of HPSEB and Local Commissioner had also failed to explain in his report that what was the source of extension of light in the demised premises and the objection raised by respondent No.2 were to the effect that the statement of Shri Hardeep Singh and Shri Tek Chand Thakur were not recorded in the presence of all the parties and even no photographs were taken in the presence of the parties and the Local Commissioner in the present case has not acted fairly and had tried to help respondent No.1 which is apparent from his report since he had recorded the statement of aforesaid witnesses behind the back of the objector and it is also stated in the objections that the report of the Local Commissioner is based on hypothesis and assumptions that MCB Box which is affixed in the shop is connected with the wire from the floor below and as a matter of fact there is no wire from such shop which comes to the lower floor which is in occupation of the owner.
6. Reply to the said application was also filed by the complainant/respondent No.1 wherein it is alleged that there is no legal provision which permits cross-examination of the Local Commissioner at the stage of revision and there is no merit in the present application which deserves outright rejection.
7. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and have also gone through the record of the case minutely, Mr. Rajesh Verma, learned Counsel for respondent No.2 and Mr. Bhagwan Chand, learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that as per Section 13(4) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, witness can be summoned for cross examination by the other party and he had also d
