Jai Dev Agarwal vs HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

THIS Revision Petition -is directed against the Order dated 21st August, 1995 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, by which the appeal filed by the revision petitioner was dismissed.

THE facts of the case are that the complainant, petitioner in this revision petition, filed a complaint before the District Forum, that he was a consumer of electric energy for domestic purpose. He has been making payment of the bills regularly but despite this, the respondent issued two bills for Rs. 11,207/ - and Rs. 737/ - pertaining to the meters install led at the premises. Those were incorrect and highly exaggerated and despite repeated requests no heed was paid to cancel the bills. The respondent -Haryana State Electricity Board contested the complaint on the ground that the premises of the complaint was checked by the Vigilance Cell of the respondent on 14.5.1993 and it was found that, that meter of account No. 171 was moving in the reverse direction and its T.C. Seal was found missing while M & T Seals were found painted. As regards the other meter both TC seals and M & T seals were found painted. Thus it was a case of theft of energy and so penalty of Rs. 11,207/ - and Rs. 737/ - was imposed upon the complainant due to the aforesaid reasons. It was also pleaded that the complainant had filed a civil suit claiming a decree for permanent injunction restraining the respondent from disconnecting the electricity and the civil suit was pending in the Court of Sub -Judge Ist Class, Gurgaon.

AFTER considering the relevant contention of the parties, the District Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground that the petitioner had instituted a civil suit at Gurgaon contending therein that he was a consumer of the electricity having accounts No. 171, 180 and 237 and the bills amounting to Rs. 15,246/ - Rs. 2,593/ - and Rs. 1,817/ - were incorrectly prepared. As the dispute regarding imposition of penalty was already under adjudication in the Civil Court, so the complaint was not maintainable.

THE complainant approached the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh by way of an appeal but without success. The State Commission also agreed with the finding of the District Forum and held that in view of the pendency of the civil suit in the Civil Court on identical matter the complaint was not maintainable. The matter did not rest there. The petitioner has approached this Commission by way of this revision petition. The petitioner appeared in person. The only point canvassed by the petitioner before us was that the finding of the District Forum and the State Commission were contrary to the facts placed on the record. The documents have been misread, misinterpreted and misconstrued which had resulted into miscarriage of justice. According to him the subject -matter of the suit and the subject matter of the complaint were not identical. On the other hand, Counsel for the respondent contended that the District Forum as well as the State Commission rightly held that the subject matter of the suit and that of the complaint was identical and rightly dismissed the complaint.

WE have considered the relevant contentions of the parties. We have perused the complaint as well as the contents of the plaint, copy of which has been filed by the respondent on the record of this case. In para 5 of the plaint, the grievance made by the petitioner is that he had already paid the upto date bill dated 10th April, 1993 amounting to Rs. 767/ - but despite mat the respondent was bent upon disconnecting the electricity and as such the respondent may be restrained from doing so. In the plaint, the petitioner has not challenged the correctness of the bills amounting to Rs. 15,246/ -, Rs. 2,593/ - and Rs. 1,817/ - as observed by the District Forum and the State Commission. Even there is no reference to any bill in the plaint. In our opinion, the subject matter of the plaint and the corn plaint is not identical. The District Forum and the State Commission misread, and misinterpreted the evidence and returned the finding under misapprehension of facts that the subject matter of the suit and subject -matter of the complaint was identical. The order passed by the District Forum as well as the State Commission suffer from legal infirmity and cannot be sustained in law. We hold that the complaint filed before the District Forum was maintainable and it should have been decided on merit. As a result, the Revision Petition is a allowed orders of the State Commission as well as the District Forum are set aside and the case is remanded to the District Forum for deciding the complaint of the petitioner on merit. However, we do not make any order as to costs. Revision petition allowed.