RAJENDRA PRASAD Vs. JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SLAPPED with an unusually high electricity bill, threatened with disconnection of his electricity connection, trying to save himself and his family, literally and figuratively, from being plunged into darkness, the appellant has been running from one Court to another. The appellant has challenged the Order dated 26. 4. 2006 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Bharatpur, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the temporary injunction application filed by the appellant under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code (henceforth to be referred to as `the Code', for short ).

(2.) IN a nutshell the facts of the case are that the appellant has a modest home in Bharatpur. He also has an electricity connection, connection Account No. 1512/18100104. The respondent has also installed an electric Meter, bearing No. 559920 at his house. The electrical connection is for `domestic' purpose. The appellant had religiously paid his electric bills to the respondent. IN February 2003, the meter recorded as 17695. Thus, in one month, the appellant had consumed 700 units. Hence, the respondent sent a electric bill for Rs. 2145/- to the appellant. According to the appellant this was the `normal' bill that he had been receiving for the last few years. Therefore, the appellant paid the said bill. However, on 19. 3. 2003, the respondent's officer illegally removed the electric meter ostensibly on the ground that the appellant had tampered with the meter. According to them, the body seal and the terminal seal were tempered with. But, the officers assured the appellant that a new meter would be installed immediately. But, the meter was not restored. IN May 2003, the appellant received an electric bill based on `minimum charges'. He paid the same. To his great shock and dismay, suddenly in September 2003, the appellant received a notice from the respondent, notice dated 29. 9. 2003, demanding Rs. 22,000/- as `settlement amount' for the misuse of energy. He also received a supplementary bill for consumption of 1,59,280 units of electricity. The appellant immediately rushed to the District Consumer Forum in order to challenge the said notice and the supplementary bill. According to him, before the notice and the supplementary bill could be issued, the meter had to be tested by an Electrical INspector. As the Electrical INspector had not tested the functions of the electric meter, the notice and the supplementary bill could not be issued. Vide Order dated 30. 10. 2003, the learned Forum stayed the recovery of the amount. On 13. 11. 2003, the appellant submitted an application for restoration of the electricity supply, which was duly allowed. A new meter was finally installed. The appellant has been paying the electricity bill regularly since then. However, vide order dated 12. 1. 2006, the learned Forum has dismissed the appellant's complaint on the ground of `jurisdiction'. Before the learned Forum, the respondent had taken the plea that as the case involved disputed questions of facts, as it required detailed evidence, the summary procedure prevalent in the Forum was unsuitable for the adjudication of the case. According to them, only the civil courts could adjudicate the case. Agreeing with the respondent's contention, the learned Forum dismissed the appellant's complaint. As soon as the complaint was dismissed, the respondent disconnected the meter. The appellant and his family were left in the dark.

(3.) AT the first blush, the language of both Condition No. 49 of the Punjab General Supply Condition and of Condition 30 of the Rajasthan General Supply Condition appears to be identical. However, as the emphasis indicates above, there is a vast difference between the two General Supply Conditions. While the Punjab General Supply Conditions uses the word `shall', the Rajasthan one uses the word `may'. Thus, while the former is a mandatory condition, the latter is a directory one. The former compels the consumer to approach the Settlement Committee. It further states that `in the event of any difference or dispute arising that cannot be determined as aforesaid, the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1996 as amended from time to time shall apply". Hence, it totally ousts the jurisdiction of the civil Court. It has created an alternate dispute resolution forum either in the shape of the Settlement Committee, or in the shape of arbitration proceeding. Thus, the consumer is not permitted to approach he civil Court for adjudication of his dispute with the Board. It is in these circumstances that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashwani Kumar (supra) had observed "the statutory circulars adumbrated above do indicate that a fundamental fairness of the procedure has been prescribed in the rules and is being followed. By necessary implication the cognizance of the civil cause has been excluded. As a consequence, the Civil Court shall not be justified in entertaining this suit. . . "