DR JAIRAJ BEHARI Vs. UPELECTRIC SUPPLY CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The following points have been referred to us for decision by the learned Judge of the Small Cause Court, Allahabad, under Order 1 of Order 46, Civil P.C.: 1. Whether a person entitled to supply of energy Under Section 22, Electricity Act of 1910, has a cause of action for a suit for damages on account of the ; licensee's failure to supply energy according to Section 22 and para. 6 to the Schedule? 2. Whether the civil Court including the Judge, Small Cause Court, has jurisdiction to entertain such a suit?

(2.) It appears that the plaintiff, Dr. Jairaj Bihari, recently built a house in a locality which is known as George Town Extension Scheme. The defendant, the U. P. Electric Supply Co. Ltd., is the licensee for the distribution of electric energy in the town of Allahabad. It is admitted that the house of the plaintiff is within the "area of supply."

(3.) In January 1989 the plaintiff sent a requisition to the defendant to supply electric energy. The defendant was informed that the plaintiff was desirous to occupy his newly built house on 14 February. In anticipation of the supply of energy the plaintiff alleges that he got his house installed for alternating current. The defendant however failed to connect the plaintiff's house. The plaintiff has brought the present action against the defendant company alleging a breach by the defendant of the statutory obligation imposed by Section 22 of Act 9 of 1910 and para. 6 of the Schedule appended to the Act, and damage ensuing as the result of that breach. The plaintiff has assessed his damage at Rs. 5 per day from 1 April 1939 to 14 September 1939. The defendant resisted the claim on a variety of grounds. The only point with which we are concerned at this stage relates to the question of jurisdiction. The defendant alleges that even if it be assumed that the plaintiff has suffered damage and that the defendant was bound to supply energy, the only remedy open to the plaintiff is to make a complaint under Section 42(b) of the Act. It is emphatically denied that the plaintiff has any right to claim damages in a civil Court. It is further contended that no civil liability is imposed upon the defendant by the Act. It is argued that the Act exhaustively provides remedies for every contravention of the provisions of the Act and the rights and the liabilities of the parties are limited to the provisions of the Electricity Act. The case has been argued at length with great ability by learned Counsel for the parties. Before examining the authorities cited before us, it would be convenient to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act. Section 22, Electricity Act, provides: Where energy is supplied by a licensee, every person within the area of supply shall, except in so far as is otherwise provided by the terms and conditions of the license, be entitled, on application, to a supply on the same terms as those on which any other person in the same area is entitled in similar circumstances to a corresponding supply.