JODHPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM vs R.K. Yadav

HEARD. This petition under Section 17(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against a interlocutory order dated 23.1.2004 whereby the District Forum, Churu has directed the appellant to restore supply of electricity energy on the electric connections of the respondents for domestic purposes.

THE contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that before making such order the Forum should have directed for deposit of the entire amount, outstanding against the connection from which the respondents were obtaining electric energy for consumption in their respective premises and, therefore, by not doing so the Forum has failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested in it and/or exercised such jurisdiction with material irregularity. The relevant facts are that the respondents, who are all Government servants, are the occupants of such Government accommodations to which the electric energy is being supplied from the main electric connection, installed in the premises occupied by the A.En., P.W.D. It was alleged by the petitioner that a sum of Rs. 62,063/- was outstanding against the main electric connection installed in the premises of the A.En., P.W.D. and that he did not deposit the aforesaid amount despite repeated demands and issuance of notice. Their further case is that sub-meters in the premises occupied by the respondents had already been installed.

After having considered the versions of both the parties the Forum held that the prima facie case existed in favour of the respondents and that they were likely to be subjected to great hardship and inconvenience in case supply of electric energy was not restored to them, during the pendency of the complainant.

RELYING upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of U.P. Junior Doctors Action Committee & Ors. v. Dr. B. Sheetal Nandwani and Ors., JT 1992 (1) SC 571 and Permanent Lok Adalat decision dated 13.12.2002 in the Pre-Litigation Application No. 42/2002, Bhanwar Singh & Anr. v. Asstt. Engineer, RSEB Churu, and District Forum''s order dated 25.8.2003 in Complaint No. 38/2003, Khadi Gramodhyog Vidya Mandir, Churu v. A. En. Rural, RSEB,Churu, it was submitted that no order under Section 13(3B) of the Act should have been passed by the District Forum in the present case, without asking the respondents to deposit the amount outstanding against them. It is noted that neither before the District Forum nor even before us no attempt was made by the petitioner to disclose as to what was the individual liability of each of the respondents. Repeatedly did we ask as to how many persons in all were getting supply of electric energy through sub-meters from the same main-meter, though it could not be denied that their number may be in dozens. On further querry we were informed that now the A.En., P.W.D. has been sanctioned a separate meter but the main-meter in question was still in his name. It was also not told as to what steps, save allegedly issuing notices on 31.7.2003 and 12.9.2003 to the A.En. P.W.D., was taken against him. It is not alleged that any of the respondents, who happen to be low-paid Govt. employees as IVth class servants, mostly serving in Judicial Courts, was ever required to pay any specified amount, commensurate to the electric energy used by him, before disconnecting his connection on 19.1.1994, though the sums of Rs. 810/- in September 2002 and Rs. 4,490/- in November 2002 were deposited by the A.En. P.W.D.

IN the facts and under the circumstances pointed out above the District Forum cannot be said to have exercised its discretion under Section 13(3B) of the Act illegally or with material irregularity. In view of the above we do not find the present case fit for exercise of our powers under Section 17(1)(b) of the Act. The petition is, therefore, summarily dismissed. Petition dismissed.