Reserved
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
U.P. Lucknow.
Appeal No. 1657 / 1994
Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division-II,
Kishore Nagar, Aligarh. ……Appellant.
Versus
Ravi Shankar Bhatt, H. No.2/316, Dukan,
Rashtriya Janta Chikitasalaya, Vishnupuri,
Chandania Road, Aligarh. …..Respondent.
Present:-
1- Hon’ble Sri Govardhan Yadav, Presiding Member.
2- Hon’ble Sri Rajendra Singh, Member.
Sri Deepak Mehrotra, Ld. counsel for appellant.
Sri M.H. Khan, Ld. Counsel for respondent.
Date 24.02.2021
JUDGMENT
Per Sri Rajendra Singh, Member-This Appeal has been filed by the appellant under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the judgment and order dated 10.04.1994/10.03.1994 passed by the District Consumer Forum’s, Aligarh in complainant case number 556/93 whereby the complainant was allowed by the two members and dismissed by the President.
The grounds of appeal are that the judgment and order under challenge is absolutely ambiguous and is a clear example of careless working of the district forum. Though it appears from the judgment that the Complainant has been allowed by both the members and rejected by the learned President of the forum, yet nothing is clear. Different dates are written here and there on the judgment and no date is present with the signature of the President. The learned members of the Forum failed to see that civil
(2)
Suit (suit number 372/90) five by the complainant against the UPS EB was pending at the time of filing the complaint and at the time of delivery of judgment. The firm has failed to see that the learned and safe in whose court the case number 372/92 was pending, rejected the interim relief application of the complainant and on this the complainant filed the appeal (vide appeal number 90/90) before the District Judge, Aligarh against the interlocutory order of the Munsif.
The forum That has also failed to see that in the judgment and order dated 06/01/1993 passed in Appeal 90/90 by the VIII Additional District Judge, Aligarh , the learned judge has directed the opposite parties to reconnect the connection of the complainant only. The firm has failed to see that there was no direction in the order dated 06/01/1993 regarding the payment of due w.e.f the date of disconnection till the date of connection. This matter was to be decided by the Learned Munsif in whose court the civil suit was pending. The opposite parties were also present before the District Forum, copy of the stay order passed by the Hon’ble High Court Allahabad in the Writ Petition filed in the case by the opposite parties against the judgment and order dated 06/01/1993 of VIII Additional District Judge. But the forum did not take it seriously and travelled beyond its jurisdiction in entertaining complaint and deciding it. This was very much within the notice of the forum that the Civil Suit was pending, Writ Petition was pending in the Allahabad High Court and besides this. It was also pending before the Hon’ble High Court at Allahabad arising out of the same
(3)
dispute first but, without caring for fate of the case to be decided by the learned Munsif or by the Hon’ble High Court, the forum assumed the supreme power and decided the complaint in most illegal and arbitrary manner.
The forum also failed to see that the complaint filed by the complainant was ambiguous and was without any prayer and has not tenable in law. It was mentioned by the opposite parties in their written statement before the forum that if the opposite parties were committing any contempt of order of the VIII Additional District Judge or any other court they would be liable to face the consequences in that very court. In the Judgment and Order under challenge, the members have not disclosed any reason as to why the bill dated 09/07/1993 was illegal. Moreover without holding the act of disconnection to be illegal, the bill issued by the opposite parties cannot be quashed. If the disconnection was found to be proper and legal, there was no question of question the bills issued by the opposite parties. The Consumer Protection Forum established under the Consumer Protection Act does not have the jurisdiction and powers to issue directions for quashing the bills. The judgment and order under challenge is not a judgment within the meaning of section 14 (ii) of the Consumer Petition Act. It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble commission may be pleased to set aside the judgment and order dated 10/04/1994 – 10/03/1994 passed by the District Consumer Forum (by two members) Aligarh in complainant case number 556/90 and to pass further orders as may be deemed just and proper in the
(4)
circumstances of the case, in favour of the appellants/ opposite parties.
The respondent has submitted objection and written statement against the appeal. The respondent had stated that complainant is a registered medical practitioner running his clinic in a small shop, since 08.00 AM to 02.00 PM and in the evening from 07.00 PM to 10.00 PM and he uses only a bulb and a fan therein . It was under the connection allotted by the opposite party since 29 December 1986 . Hence there is a little consumption of the electricity in his clinic. The greedy employee were interested in their illegal gain due to less consumption which was denied by the complainant. Hence they being annoyed started to harass the complainant and in this pursuance they made a false report that the meter of the complainant has been burnt which was actually not burnt but proper working. The complainant made representation before the competent authorities and various complaints were made on 15 January 1990, 7 March 1990 and 15 May 1990.
The competent authority made enquiry about the aforesaid dispute and amicably settled the matter finally subject the matter to payment of Rs.198.10/-which was deposited. Therefore the old meter was replaced by new meter. But the issuing of billing was stopped by the employees of the opposite parties. Therefore a minimum charge was deposited to the opposite party to avoid disconnection. The opposite parties’ employees with the malafide intention disconnected the aforesaid connection on 30 June 1990 and in this regard a representation was
(5)
also made by the complainant to the opposite parties. But no action was taken. Hence the complainant filed a civil suit before the Munsif court, Aligarh along with an interim application and in its support the enquiry report was filed. The Munsif court after receiving the written statement filed on behalf of the opposite party reached the conclusion that there is no prior notice before the aforesaid disconnection and also found that prima facie it is established that no basis of the said disconnection has been established by the opposite party. However the court found that the plaintiff is unable to put estimate of his loss as simply shown Rs.75/– per day. Therefore in absence of the estimated total loss for the interim application for the restoration of the connection was rejected on 19 July 1990, which was challenged by the plaintiff before the court of District Judge in appeal number 90/90. The aforesaid appeal was disposed of by the court of Eighth Additional District Judge, Aligarh on 6 January 1993 on the ground that once the prima facie it was held by the court below that the disconnection has legally been made on 30 June 1990 was without notice for which the opposite party was not authorised and on account of this fault of the opposite party the plaintiff clearly stated that he had suffered a loss of the Rs.75/– per day . Therefore the question of non-calculation does not arise and therefore the interim application has wrongly been rejected.
While disposing of the aforesaid civil appeal under order dated 6 January 1930 the Additional District Judge has considered the enquiry made by the authorities and the dispute was amicably settled subject to final payment
(6)
of Rs.198.10/–. Therefore after replacement of the meter double must be issued according to consumption. Therefore the civil appeal was allowed with the direction to the opposite party to restore the connection of the plaintiff within 15 days by instilling the meter. This order of the Additional District Judge has not been complied with and hence contempt was filed. The aforesaid consumer dispute arose between the parties when the bill was issued towards the arrear during after the disconnection till the restoration for which there was no arrears as the minimum charges were continuously paid. Therefore the complainant was not liable for the aforesaid illegal and arbitrary bills. There was no evidence or any order was filed by the opposite party for dismissal or any stay order before the District Forum, hence The District Forum has rightly allowed the complaint. The District Forum has rightly quashed the bill dated 9 July 1993 for Rs.7482/– as wrongly issued by the opposite parties/Appellant and further directed to raise the fresh bill showing minimum charges from 25 February 1993. Hence the aforesaid appeal is not maintainable and liable to be set aside with cost as there is no additional evidence. The case has finally been settled by the civil court and the District Forum which was decided after considering all the evidences on record. Therefore the present appeal is liable to be dismissed.
Before the Consumer Protection Forum, Aligarh, a complaint case number 596/93 has been filed by the complainant against UPSEB. The judgment delivered by
(7)
Dr Hem Prakash on 10 April 1994 direct interoperability party to raise a fresh bill showing minimum charges from
25 February 1993. He quashed the bill dated 9 July 1993 Rs. 7482/–. The other judgment was delivered by Shri S. D. Ram, president of the District Forum in which he dismissed the complaint saying that admittedly the connection has been restored on 25 February 1993 in compliance of the order of learned Additional District Judge but against this order, appeal is pending before the Hon’ble High Court and the matter is therefore sub judice so complaint deserve to be dismissed. The other member Ms Manju Kashi Dixit agreed with the findings of learned member Dr. Hem Prakas. So the majority order was in favour of complainant.
We also went through the judgment passed by Shri S.K.Bhatt, Additional District Judge, Aligarh dated 6 January 1993 passed in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal no. 90/90 in which the appeal was preferred against the order dated 19.07.1990 passed by Munsif Kol in Original Suit Number 372/90 by which the application 7C /2 for interim injunction of the plaintiff Ravi Shankar Bhatt has been dismissed. The appellate court set aside the order of the Munsif Kol and accepted the application of the plaintiff 7C/2 and that the defendant to restore the electricity connection of the plaintiff within 15 days.
The Second Additional Munsif Aligarh delivered ex parte judgment in original suit number 372/90 on 30 May 1992, and decreed directing the defendant and their agents to reconnect the electric connection of the plaintiff within 15 days. Thus it is clear that the civil suit was only
(8)
for reconnection of the electricity which has been disconnected. As per majority judgment of the learned
District Consumer Commission the opposite party was directed to raise a fresh bill showing minimum charges from 25th February 1993 and the bill dated ninth July 1993 was quashed.
The judgment passed by the District Consumer Forum dated10.08.1994 is the majority judgment. We have seen this judgment. There is difference between the order passed by the Additional District Judge and the judgment passed by the Learned District Forum. The civil suit was in connection to injunction and the case before the learned forum was for illegal bill raised four Rs.7482/– during the period of disconnection. Therefore, there is difference between these two courts.
In appeal, the Appellant has stated that different dates are written here and there on the judgment and no data is present with the signature of the President. But the appellant has specifically prayed to set aside the judgment and order dated 10 April 1994 – 10th March 1994. The main judgment which allowed the complaint of complainant is of 10th April 1994. The appellant in para 11 has said that the members have not disclosed any reason as to why the bill dated 9 July 1993 was illegal. Moreover without holding the act of disconnection to be illegal, the bill issued by the opposite parties cannot be quashed. If the disconnection was found to be proper and legal, there was no question of quashing the bills issued by the opposite parties. But the appellant has said nothing about the disconnection, about the date of disconnection and did not produce any records
(9)
regarding this disconnection. From the judgment of the civil court it is clear that the appellant has disconnected the electric connection that’s why injunction was granted and they were directed to reconnect. If any bill is raised, maybe minimum, of the period of disconnection then it is deficiency in service. The district forum has full jurisdiction to decide the cases related to deficiency in service. So the majority judgment of the forum did not suffer from any illegality and is proper and needs no interference. Strangely this case is of 1994 and the appellant department is contesting it for the last 26 years. How much amount has been paid towards counsel fee, is not clear. There was no need to file appeal against the said order. The basic mantra before enactment of the Consumer Protection Act is to provide speedy justice to the consumers. But here everything is going wrong on the part of the Appellant. In his appeal he has played to set aside the judgment and order dated 10.04.1994 – 10.03.1994. The copy of the judgment attached with the appeal has a date of 10.04.94 in which the complaint has been allowed and the other order is of the President dismissing the complaint. There is one order dated 10.08.94 in which the other member agreed with the finding of first member Mr. Hem Prakash so the final order is of 10.04.94. But in appeal the order prayed to be quashed has been written as10.04.1994 – 10.03.1994 but it’s not clear that this order the appellant wanted to be quashed.
As far as the order dated 10.04.1994 is concerned, it needs not any interference and is liable to be upheld while the appeal has no force and is liable to be set aside and
(10)
Appellant is liable to pay Rs 100000.00 as compensation for Mental agony and Rs 50000.00 as cost to be paid to Respondent/ Complainant. He is also pay interest @ 10% on this amount from the date of the judgment of the District Consumer Forum till the date of payment .
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed with costs and the judgment/ order of the District Forum/ Commission passed by the majority dated 10.04.1994 is upheld with addition that the Appellant / Opposite Party shall pay Rs.100000.00 ( one lac) as compensation for Mental agony and Rs50000.00 ( Fifty thousands) as cost to be paid to Respondent / Complainant. He is also pay interest @ 10% on these amount from the date of the judgment of the District Consumer Forum and shall pay it within 30 days from the date of judgment of this appeal and if not paid, the rate of interest will be 15%. If this amount is not paid within 30 days, the respondent/complainant will be at liberty to recover it through court at the cost of the appellant/opposite party. Let the copy of the judgment be provided as per rules.
(Goverdhan Yadav) (Rajendra Singh)
Presiding Member Member
Judgment dated/typed signed by us and pronounced in the open court. Consign the record.
(Goverdhan Yadav) (Rajendra Singh)
Presiding Member Member
Jafri
C-1
