Tpddl(Ndpl) vs Indian Institure Of Finance

HEARD .

RESPONDENTS /Complainants filed a Consumer Complaint against Appellant/Opposite Party on the allegations, that on 28.03.1999 power of Respondent No.1 -Institute went off and complaint was lodged with the appellant. Later on, underground cable was replaced and electric supply was restored on 31.03.1999. It is alleged that on 22.05.1999, Mr. Nagpal, Superintendent (Enforcement) came to their office and threatened to disconnect the electricity if they failed to accede to his demand of Rs.50,000/ -. Thereafter, Mr. Nagpal removed the meter and disconnected the power supply. Appellant then raised a bill dated 22.05.1999 for Rs.4,70,947.35 paise on the basis of inspection report. Against this, respondents filed complaint claiming Rs.1/ - (Rupee One only) by way of damages for the insult, harassment, mental tension, loss of business and agony. In addition, an amount of Rs.10,000/ - as cost of litigation also claimed before the District Forum. During pendency of the complaint, appellant issued another bill dated 05.01.2000 for Rs.5,15,246.46 paise and on application filed by the appellant, District Forum dismissed the complaint on account of pecuniary jurisdiction with liberty to the respondents to file complaint before the State Commission. Thereafter, respondents filed consumer complaint before the State Commission, seeking quashing of the bills in question.

APPELLANT in its reply stated, that matter was referred to Public Grievance Cell, Govt. of NCT of Delhi and appellant was directed to monitor the consumption pattern of respondents. After analysis of consumer pattern recorded by the pilot meter, appellant approved dropping of case against the consumer. Thus, matter has already been sorted out. State Commission vide impugned order, allowed the complaint and observed as under; "7. As is apparent from the rival claims of the parties, particularly, the report of the analysis of consumption pattern recorded by the pilot meter approving dropping of FAE case against the complainant on the ground that no proper inspection was carried out and details were not furnished nor was any ''Show Cause Notice'' served upon the complainant, we deem that a lump sum compensation of Rs. 50,000/ - (Fifty Thousand) for the mental agony, harassment, emotional suffering and physical discomfort and loss suffered by the complainant shall meet the ends of justice, as the Supreme Court in Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh, 2004 5 SCC 65, has held that compensation takes in its fold each and every element of suffering, including physical, mental, emotional and every form of injury or loss. The observations of the Supreme Court and are noteworthy and are as under: -

"The word ''compensation'' is of a very wide connotation. It may constitute actual loss or expected loss and may extend to compensation for physical, mental or even emotional suffering, insult or injury or loss. The provisions of the Consumer Protection Act enable a consumer to claim and empower the Commission to redress any injustice done. The Commission or the Forum is entitled to award not only value of goods or services but also to compensate a consumer for injustice suffered by him. The Commission/ Forum must determine that such sufferance is due to malafide or capricious or oppressive act. It can then determine amount for which the authority is liable to compensate the consumer for his sufferance due to misfeasance in public office by the officers. Such compensation is for vindicating the strength of law."

Forcing a consumer to seek redressal before a Court of law or Forum which is not only a time consuming process but has also become very expensive is unfair and every consumer is entitled to adequate compensation on this ground also. If there is any existing bill raised on FAE basis, the same shall stand quashed."

IT is admitted fact, that appellant in the present case has withdrawn the bills in question. However, there is force in the submissions made by learned counsel for appellant, that State Commission had exceeded its jurisdiction in awarding a sum of Rs.50,000/ - as compensation, when respondents themselves have claimed Re 1 only as Token damages and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/ -.

ADMITTEDLY , respondents have claimed Re 1 only as Token damages for mental agony and suffering undergone by them and for litigation cost they have claimed Rs.10,000/ -.

THUS , the State Commission clearly exceeded its jurisdiction in awarding the sum of Rs.50,000/ -, which was not even claimed by the respondents at all. Accordingly, we modify the order passed by the State Commission and order, that instead of Rs.50,000/ -, appellant shall pay a sum of Rs.10,001/ - (Rupees Ten Thousand and one only) to the respondents by way of demand draft within four weeks.

WITH these observations, present appeal stands disposed of.