S.D.O. CITY SUB-DIVISION, H.S.E.B. vs Shamlal

THIS appeal must succeed on the short ground that the order of the District Forum is so cryptic that it must necessarily be set-aside. It therefore, suffices to advert to the facts with the utmost brevity.

THE complainant-respondent had preferred the complaint on the ground that he was an electricity consumer of the Board at Jhahaj Pool (Hisar) since 1988. It was his claim that the average bills of electric energy had never exceeded Rs. 1800/- per month from the 9th of February, 1989 to the 18th of October, 1991. However, to his surprise he received a bill for the month of December, 1991 to the tune of Rs. 25,575.44 paise and when he made enquiry about the inflated bill, the Board authorities alleged that the glass of the electric meter was found broken in the month of April, 1991. It was further the case that the complainant had himself informed the S.D.O. of the H.S.E.B. vide letter dated the 1st of April, 1991 that the glass of the electric meter is cracked and meter may therefore be replaced. Consequently the defective meter was changed and its seals were found intact at the time of its replacement and relevant entries were made in the records. THEreafter, the defective meter remained in the custody of the Sub Divisional Officer for 5 to 6 months and was apparently checked thereafter. However the complainant''s electric connection was disconnected without any notice and an inflated bill mentioned above was levied upon him without taking the reading on the ground that the premises were locked and he was consequently harassed and forced to deposit Rs. 15,000/- as part-payment of the charges vide receipt No. 66623 dated the 3rd of January, 1992. THE relief claimed was that the appellant be directed to refund the deposited amount and further not to disconnect the electric supply. On notice being issued, the appellant resolutely defended the complaint by first raising as many as four preliminary objections. Therein whilst placing reliance on The Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh, Indore v. Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board, Jabalpur, AIR 1970, S.C. 732, it was alleged that the supply of electricity was "goods" and the same having been secured by the complainant for a commercial purpose, he did not come within the ambit of a "Consumer". It was also pleaded that as per Clause 14 of the agreement, the meter installed at the premises of the complainant was checked in his presence and the report was signed and agreed to by him, he was consequently estopped from re-agitating the matter. It was reiterated that the complainant was neither a consumer nor there was any deficiency in the supply of the electricity and lastly it was the case that the matter in dispute involves complicated questions of fact and law which could not be decided in the summary proceedings in the consumer jurisdiction. On merits again, the allegation in the complaint was stoutly controverted and the plea was taken that the glass of the electricity meter was found broken in April, 1991 and there was theft of electricity by the complainant. In accordance with the Sales Circular of the H.S.E.B. a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- @ 1,000/- per BHP was charged on the ground that the load of the complainant''s meter is 25 BHP. The other allegations were denied and the plea was taken that the supply of electricity had to be dis-connected because of the patent default in the payment of the charges which was in accordance with the rules and instructions of the Board. It was the firm stand that the billed amount was correct and the complainant was obliged to discharge his liability therefor.

The respondent filed a detailed replication to the written statement reiterating his earlier stand, and attempted to meet the preliminary objection with regard to the jurisdiction.

IT appears from the record that after the aforesaid pleadings were completed, a two lines'' statement of the complainant was recorded and thereafter the matter was summarily disposed of. The cryptic character of the order is manifest from noticing the same in extenso:- "Complainant has already deposited the amount of Rs. 15,000/- towards penalty and now has requested for the refund of Rs. 5,000/- only. He, in this manner seeks the relief of Rs. 10,000/- + 5,000/- = 15,000/- out of Rs. 25,000/- imposed as penalty. The action of Respondent of imposing penalty is one- sided without any notice and as such is not entitled for the full amount. The amount of Rs. 25,000/- is reduced to Rs. 10,000/- only. Respondent is to refund the amount of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant."

THE learned Counsel for the appellant has rightly assailed the aforesaid order as wholly unsustainable and worthy of summary quashing. It is pointed out that it is virtually a non-speaking order which is not easy of comprehension. A rightful grievance has been made that no findings have been given on the meaningful preliminary objections which were firmly raised in the written statement, and which went to the root of the jurisdiction. Equally it was assailed on the ground that the same was devoid of any reasoning and more in the shape of a dictum rather than a meaningful adjudication. The submission aforesaid is so patently meritorious that it is unnecessary to labour the point. Even the learned Counsel for the respondent had to virtually concede his inability to support an order of this nature in a judicial jurisdiction. It bears repetition that the pleadings of the parties were reasonably elaborate and in the written statement, both jurisdictional objections and opposition on merits were stoutly pressed. Curiously these seem to have not been remotely adverted to. It is true that the consumer jurisdiction is expeditious and summary in nature but this cannot be carried to the length of slip shop and arbitrarily unreasonable orders on the rights of the parties. The National Commission has seriously frowned on hasty decisions without giving proper weight to the pleadings and the evidence of the parties. In view of the above, we find no option but to set-aside the order of the District Forum and to remand the matter for a fresh trial meticulously in accordance with law. It goes without saying that the parties would be allowed to lead evidence and both the issues of maintainability and jurisdiction and the merits would be adjudicated upon with full consideration.

THIS appeal is consequently allowed in the terms aforesaid without any order as to costs. Appeal allowed.