MAHIPAL SINGH vs Unbvnl

IN this revision petition, there is challenge to order dated 13.7.2010, passed by Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (for short ''State Commission''). Vide impugned order, State Commission allowed the appeal of respondent challenging order dated 4.10.2006 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Yamuna Nagar (for short ''District Forum'').

BRIEF facts are that petitioner/complainant filed a complaint before District Forum on the allegations that he is a consumer of respondent/opposite party, vide electric connection No. MI/31. He is paying the bills regularly without any default or delay against valid receipts. His electric meter got burnt on 2.2.2006. Respondent was informed firstly over telephone and on the next day by written complaint. Respondent was asked to install a new meter. Petitioner was accordingly asked to deposit Rs. 4,700 on account of cost of meter, which was duly paid. Due to non supply of the electricity, poultry birds of petitioner started dying for want of requisite heat and timely water. Thus, petitioner suffered financial loss in his Poultry business. Petitioner, received a memo dated 11.2.2006, vide which respondent levied a penalty of amount of Rs. 5,20,000 on account of alleged theft. The memo is liable to be set aside as no notice was given to the petitioner before imposition of the penalty. No opportunity or hearing was given to the petitioner. Respondent permanently disconnected the electric supply without the service of notice of 7 days which is required to be served under law. Respondent has failed to inform the petitioner the basis of their calculations. Thus, respondent has acted in a very negligent and deficient manner and have caused harassment, mental agony and financial loss to the petitioner by their act for which petitioner is entitled for compensation. Petitioner prayed for quashing of the memo No. 6155, dated 11.2.2006 and to restore the electric connection No. MI-31 immediately and not to recover the illegal amount imposed on him and to direct the respondent to refund the amount, if any deposited by him and pay Rs. 4,00,000 as compensation on account of harassment, mental agony, and loss caused to the petitioner and pay Rs. 2,27,000 along with interest on account of loss suffered by petitioner due to illegal and deficient act of the respondent and pay Rs. 11,000 as cost of litigation.

RESPONDENT in its written statement has pleaded that complaint does not lie as per law, because petitioner himself has admitted that he has been using the direct supply from L. T. Pole adjoining his premises/office building. The connection of the petitioner is small scale category for industrial purposes. Now to save his skin, petitioner has filed present false complaint against the respondent. No body is authorized to use the electric supply without meter, that is, directly from the L. T. Pole. Thus, penalty was rightly imposed upon the petitioner.

DISTRICT Forum allowed the complaint and quashed memo No. 6155 dated 11.2.2006, vide which the amount was imposed on the basis of checking conducted by the official of the respondent and if any amount is found deposited towards the said amount it be refunded along with 7% interest per annum as per the order of the State Commission from the date of deposition till realization and pay Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation for causing damage due to the death of birds and fall of production of eggs and pay Rs. 5,500 as litigation expenses.

APPEAL filed by the respondent was allowed by State Commission. Vide impugned order, respondent was allowed to charge the petitioner for using the excess load of 19.517 K.W. in accordance with the rules of the Nigarn.

IT is how the matter has reached before this Commission.

IT is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that at the time of checking done by the raiding party, there was no electricity between 1.20 p.m. to 2.35 p.m. in the petitioner''s Poultry Farm. Due to lack of electricity, more than 2000 layer birds died. The State Commission did not take into consideration the certificate of Veterinary Surgeon, certifying the death of the birds belonging to the Poultry Farm of the petitioner.

ANOTHER contention of learned Counsel is that, respondent arbitrarily charged Rs. 20,000 per K. W. for theft of electricity, whereas Poultry Farm comes under the agricultural sector. For compounding, only Rs. 2,000 per K. W. can be charged for the poultry farm.

IT is further argued by the learned Counsel that Atta Chakki installed at the site was not functioning and respondent wrongly added the load of Tubewell motor which was not connected at all. Hence, impugned order is liable to be set aside.

ON the other hand, it is contended by learned Counsel for the respondent that present petition is not maintainable, since petitioner himself has admitted at the time of checking done by the raiding party, that he has been using the direct supply from L.T. Pole adjoining to his premises/office building. Moreover, connection of the petitioner is for small scale category for industrial purposes.

PRESENT revision petition is liable to be thrown out at the threshold for concealment and making false averments in the complaint.

AS per checking report dated 9.2.2006, copy of which has been placed on record by petitioner himself, it is writ large that petitioner himself had been committing theft of electricity. At the time of checking done by the raiding party, petitioner has made a noting in his own handwriting on the checking report (copy of same has been placed at Page No. 40 of the paper book). This noting shows that petitioner himself was committing theft of electricity. The noting made by the petitioner on the checking report read as under: "Takriben 7-8 din pehle mera meter va taar sarh ga1 thee jiski kimat maine bijli board ke office mein jama karva dee thee poultry birds ko marne se bachane ke liye maine pole se seedhi taar laga lee thee thaki nuksan se bacha ja sake mere par kam se kam jurmana dala jaye jo main adaa kar sakoon".

THE above admission made by the petitioner himself at the time of checking, demolishes petitioner''s own case. Moreover, petitioner has not disputed or challenged the abovesaid admission made by him at the time of checking.

IT is well settled that any person who approaches the Court or Judicial Forum with unclean hands and conceals the material facts, is not entitled to relief under the law.

RECENTLY, Apex Court in Ramrameshwari Devi and Others v. Nirmala Devi and Others, V (2011) SLT 196=III (2011) CLT 44 (SC)=Civil Appeal Nos.4912-4913 of 2011 decided on July 4, 2011 has observed: "45. We are clearly of the view that unless we ensure that wrong-doers are denied profit or undue benefit from the frivolous litigation, it would be difficult to control frivolous and uncalled for litigations. In order to curb uncalled for and frivolous litigation, the Courts have to ensure that there is no incentive or motive for uncalled for litigation. It is a matter of common experience that Court''s otherwise scarce and valuable time is consumed or more appropriately wasted in a large number of uncalled for cases. 46. Usually the Court should be cautious and extremely careful while granting ex parte ad interim injunctions. The better course for the Court is to give a short notice and in some cases even Dasti notice, hear both the parties and then pass suitable biparte orders. Experience reveals that ex parte interim injunction orders in some cases can create havoc and getting them vacated or modified in our existing judicial system is a nightmare. Therefore, as a rule, the Court should grant interim injunction or stay order only after hearing the defendants or the respondents and in case the Court has to grant ex parte injunction in exceptional cases then while granting injunction it must record in the order that if the suit is eventually dismissed, the plaintiff or the petitioner will have to pay full restitution, actual or realistic costs and mesne profits. 47. If an ex parte injunction order is granted, then in that case an endeavour should be made to dispose of the application for injunction as expeditiously as may be possible, preferably as soon as the defendant appears in the Court. 48. It is also a matter of common experience that once an ad interim injunction is granted, the plaintiff or the petitioner would make all efforts to ensure that injunction continues indefinitely. The other appropriate order can be to limit the life of the ex parte injunction or stay order for a week or so because in such cases the usual tendency of unnecessarily prolonging the matters by the plaintiffs or the petitioners after obtaining ex parte injunction orders or stay orders may not find encouragement. We have to dispel the common impression that a party by obtaining an injunction based on even false averments and forged documents will tire out the true owner and ultimately the true owner will have to give up to the wrong-doer his legitimate profit. It is also a matter of common experience that to achieve clandestine objects, false pleas are often taken and forged documents are filed indiscriminately in our Courts because they have hardly any apprehension of being prosecuted for perjury by the Courts or even pay heavy costs. In Swaran Singh v. State of Punjab, (2000) 5 SCC 668, this Court was constrained to observe that perjury has become a way of life in our Courts. 49. It is a typical example how a litigation proceeds and continues and in the end there is a profit for the wrong doers." 50. Learned Amicus articulated common man''s general impression about litigation in following words: "Make any false averment, conceal any fact, raise any plea, produce any false document, deny any genuine document, it will successfully stall the litigation, and in any case, delay the matter endlessly. The other party will be coerced into a settlement which will be profitable for me and the probability of the Court ordering prosecution for perjury is less than that of meeting with an accident while crossing the road."

SINCE, petitioner himself is a wrong doer and has deliberately not mentioned about the admissions made by him at the time of checking and has also concealed the material facts, so on the ground of equity also, is not entitled to any relief.

THUS, no jurisdiction or legal error has been shown to us to call for interference in the exercise of power under Section 21(b) of the Act.

IN our opinion, the present petition is nothing but a gross abuse of process of law and is totally meritless and frivolous. The same is required to be dismissed with punitive costs. Accordingly, we dismiss the present petition with costs of Rs. 25,000 (Rupees twenty five thousand only).

PETITIONER is directed to deposit the costs by way of a cross cheque in the name of "Consumer Legal Aid Account" within four weeks from today. In case, petitioner fails to deposit the aforesaid costs within the prescribed period, he shall also be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a., till realization.

LIST for compliance on 6th January, 2012. Revision Petition dismissed.