JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED & ORS Vs NARAYAN DUTT

Revision Petition No.67 of 2012 has been filed against the order dated 19.8.2011, passed by Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (short, "State Commission") in First Appeal No.1562 of 2009.

The brief facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant had taken one domestic electrical connection from the petitioners/opposite parties of 10 kw. The meter of the respondent was in working condition and he was paying the bill as per the units consumed by him. However, in the month of Sept., 2008, the petitioner had given wrong and arbitrary bill for Rs.11,879.72. Hence, the respondent prayed that the petitioner be directed that the amount of Rs.11,041/- should not be levied from him and electricity connection account may not be disconnected due to non-payment.

In reply to the complaint, the petitioner denied the fact and stated that on 20.12.2007, Vigilance Team has reached on the site and found that the meter was running slow. Hence, new meter was installed and inspection report prepared. Based on the inspection/test report as the old meter of the respondent was found closed, the petitioner as per rules of the Electricity Department after installing the new meter, on the basis of old meter reading of the old meter on two phases for last six months, recalculated the consumption and sent the bill for Rs.11,041/- vide notice letter dated 10.4.2008. The respondent failed to pay the same.

District Forum vide its order dated 11.11.2009 dismissed the complaint. State Commission, Rajasthan vide their order dated 19.8.2011 accepted the complaint and dismissed the additional bill of Rs.11,041/- and ordered that the amount cannot be added in the forthcoming bills. They further added that if the respondent had already paid this amount then the same amount should be adjusted in the forthcoming bills.

Hence, the revision petition.

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully gone through the record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the State Commission had wrongly allowed the appeal of the respondent on the ground that the VCR dated 20.12.2007 was not produced before the District Forum and the testing of the meter has been done after much delay and in the absence of the respondent.

Since, a paltry sum of Rs.11,041/- only, is involved in the present case, this Commission is not inclined to entertain this petition in view of the decision of the Apex Court in "Gurgaon Gramin Bank Vs. Khazani and another, IV (2012) CPJ 5 (SC), where Apex Court observed; "2. Number of litigations in our country is on the rise, for small and trivial matters, people and sometimes Central and State Governments and their instrumentalities Banks, nationalized or private, come to courts may be due to ego clash or to save the Officers- skin. Judicial system is over-burdened, naturally causes delay in adjudication of disputes. Mediation centers opened in various parts of our country have, to some extent, eased the burden of the courts but we are still in the tunnel and the light is far away. On more than one occasion, this court has reminded the Central Government, State Governments and other instrumentalities as well as to the various banking institutions to take earnest efforts to resolve the disputes at their end. At times, some give and take attitude should be adopted or both will sink. Unless, serious questions of law of general importance arise for consideration or a question which affects large number of persons or the stakes are very high, Courts jurisdiction cannot be invoked for resolution of small and trivial matters. We are really disturbed by the manner in which those types of matters are being brought to courts even at the level of Supreme Court of India and this case falls in that category." The Apex Court further held;

"10. The Chief Manager stated in the affidavit that no bill was raised by the counsel for the bank for conducting the matter before the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission. We have not been told how much money has been spent by the bank officers for there to and fro journeys to the lawyers- office, to the District Forum, State Forum, National Commission and to the Supreme Court. For a paltry amount of Rs.15000/-,even according to the affidavit, bank has already spent a total amount of Rs.12,950/- leaving aside the time spent and other miscellaneous expenses spent by the officers of the bank for to and fro expenses etc. Further, it may be noted that the District Forum had awarded Rs.3,000/- towards cost of litigation and compensation for the harassment caused to Smt. Khazani. Adding this amount, the cost goes up to Rs.15,950/-. Remember, the buffalo had died 10 years back, but the litigation is not over, fight is still on for Rs.15,000/-.

Learned counsel appearing for the bank, Shri Amit Grover, submitted that though the amount involved is not very high but the claim was fake and on inspection by the insurance company, no tag was found on the dead body of the buffalo and hence the insurer was not bound to make good the loss, consequently the bank had to proceed against Smt. Khazani

. 12. We are of the view that issues raised before us are purely questions of facts examined by the three forums including the National Disputes Redressal Commission and we fail to see what is the important question of law to be decided by the Supreme Court. In our view, these types of litigation should be discouraged and message should also go, otherwise for all trivial and silly matters people will rush to this court.

Gramin Bank like the appellant should stand for the benefit of the gramins who sometimes avail of loan for buying buffaloes, to purchase agricultural implements, manure, seeds and so on. Repayment, to a large extent, depends upon the income which they get out of that. Crop failure, due to drought or natural calamities, disease to cattle or their death may cause difficulties to gramins to repay the amount. Rather than coming to their rescue, banks often drive them to litigation leading them extreme penury. Assuming that the bank is right, but once an authority like District Forum takes a view, the bank should graciously accept it rather than going in for further litigation and even to the level of Supreme Court. Driving poor gramins to various litigative forums should be strongly deprecated because they have also to spend large amounts for conducting litigation. We condemn this type of practice, unless the stake is very high or the matter affects large number of persons or affects a general policy of the Bank which has far reaching consequences.

We, in this case, find no error in the decisions taken by all fact finding authorities including the National Disputes Redressal Commission. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the bank to the first respondent within a

period of one month. Resultantly, the Bank now has to spend altogether Rs.25,950/- for a claim of Rs.15,000/-, apart from to and fro travelling expenses of the Bank officials. Let God save the Gramins."

Above quoted observations of the Apex Court, with all force are fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

Under these circumstances, as a paltry amount of Rs.11,041/- only is involved and the petitioner being a Govt. Undertaking, this Commission is not inclined to entertain this revision. However, the question of law raised in this petition, is kept open to be decided in an appropriate case.

With the above observations, present revision petition stands dismissed accordingly.