Kanpur Vidyut Supply Company vs Assistant General Manager Vidyut Distribution Khand Noubasta

DASTI notice has been served by the petitioner on respondent No.1 through her daughter -in -law. The affidavit of service filed by the petitioners is taken on record. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

THE complainant while residing in Type -III House No.83 in Kendranchal Colony, Gulmohar Vihar, Kanpur obtained an electricity connection for residential purpose. He claims to have vacated the said house on 19 -08 -1994. The electricity connection was got disconnected by him on 16 -08 -1994. According to the complainant after the aforesaid disconnection he paid the last bill dated 27 -08 -1994 amounting to Rs.234.97/ -. The complainant, thereafter, started residing in a Type IV quarter situated in the same colony. The security deposit of Rs.720/ -, according to the complainant, was not refunded to him despite disconnection of the electricity. The complainant received a bill of RS.1,35,245/ - from the petitioners. He was called from his house and detained in civil prison. A sum of Rs.50,000/ - along with connection charges of Rs.5,000/ - was got deposited by him before he was released from the civil prison from 7:30 A.M. to 4:30 P.M. on 15 -07 -2003. The complainant then approached the concerned District Forum, seeking refund of the security deposit along with interest as well as refund of the amount which was taken from him when he was lodged in civil prison. He also sought compensation from the petitioners.

THE complaint was opposed by the petitioners. The contention of the respondent is that the connection taken by the complainant was not got disconnected by him and was disconnected by them on account of non -payment of the dues. This is also the case of the petitioners that an amount of Rs.1,35,245.06/ - was due to them from the complainant against the aforesaid connection. Another plea was taken that in view of the provisions of the UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, the consumer forum has no competence to hear the complaint. Vide order dated 26 -09 -2003 the District Forum directed the petitioners to prepare a bill for the period from 23 -06 -1994 to 16 -02 -1995 against consumption of 820 units by adding Rs.200/ - as disconnection surcharge and prepare an interim bill upto 16 -07 -2003, adjusting therein the amount of Rs.50,000/ - as well as security deposit. It was further directed that if any dues remains outstanding against the complainant he will pay the same within two months and in case any excess deposit has been made by him, that would be refunded to him along with interim bill.

BEING aggrieved from the order of the District Forum the petitioners approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 03 -04 -2014 the said Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners. Being aggrieved, the petitioners are before this Commission by way of this revision petition.

SECTION 330 of UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, on which reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his contention that the consumer forum has no jurisdiction to intervene in such matters reads as under: "330. Bar to jurisdiction of civil courts in certain matters Save as otherwise provided by or under this Act, no suit or other proceeding shall lie in any civil court in respect of - (a) any entry in or omission from a Compensation Assessment Roll; or

(b) any order passed under Part I of this Act; or

(c) the assessment or collection of land revenue under Chapter X or the recovery of any sum of money recoverable as arrears of land revenue."

IT would, thus, be seen that the aforesaid Section bars a suit or proceedings only before a civil court. A consumer forum is not necessarily a civil court. Though considering the scheme of a particular legislation, it may be held to be a court. We asked the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act provides any alternative remedy to a person who is aggrieved on account of demand raised by the petitioners towards electricity charges. The learned counsel submits that no such remedy is provided under the said Act. His contention is that the aggrieved person must, therefore, approach the concerned High Court by way of a writ petition. It is settled legal proposition that the constitutional remedy available to a person under Articles 225 and 226 is an extra ordinary remedy. Since UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act does not contain any mechanism for redressal of the grievances of a person, against whom demand on account of the electricity charges is raised, it would be difficult to say that a consumer forum would be a civil court within the meaning of Section 330C of the said Act. Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act provides that the provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of any other law for the time being in force. Since UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1950 does not contain any provision for challenging demand of electricity charges, the remedy provided under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act would be available to an aggrieved consumer if it can be shown that there has been a deficiency in the services rendered to him by the concerned service provider. We, therefore, reject the contention based upon Section 330 of the UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.

IT is next contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in fact the finding of the District Forum is in favour of the petitioners though the order passed by the said forum is against them. On a perusal of the said decision we find that the complainant had made regular payment of electricity bills upto 23 -06 -1994. He had made payment of 3333 units of electricity through final bill. The District Forum also noted that when the connection was disconnected on 16 -08 -1994, the bill of only two months was outstanding against him. It was also noted that at the time of disconnection the meter reading was 4153. Considering that he had already made payment of 3333 units, the District Forum held that he was liable to pay only for 820 units consumed by him. It was also noted by the State Commission that the complainant had neither paid bill upto six months after disconnection on 16 -08 -1994 nor submitted an application seeking permanent disconnection along with disconnection charges and in the case of non -regularization of its disconnection, the opposite party was liable to make permanent disconnection and present the entire due bill as an interim bill, to the consumer, for payment.

WE also note that the District Forum has directed the petitioners to prepare a bill for the period from 23 -06 -1994 to 16 -02 -1995, by adding six months to the date of disconnection for 820 units at the rates applicable at the relevant time and adding Rs.200/ - towards disconnection charges. The aforesaid direction in the facts and circumstances of the case cannot be said to be unjustified. Obviously, the petitioners has to give adjustment for the amount which it has already recovered from the complainant at the time he was lodged in civil prison. Therefore, we find no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. The revision petition is devoid of any merit and is hereby dismissed.