Back
2006(9) Supreme 360
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat and Lokeshwar Singh Panta, JJ.
Sub Divisional Officer (P) UHBVNL - Appellant
versus
Dharam Pal - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 4979 of 2006
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 20653 of 2004)
Decided on 15-11-2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Neeraj Kumar Jain, Bharat Singh, Sanjay Singh, Vikrant Hooda and Ugra Shankar Prasad, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Dr. Ramesh K. Haritash, Dharam Singh and Dr. Kailash Chand, Advocates.
Held : Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that this is not a case of tampering. The respondent had, two days prior to the inspection, requested the authorities to verify the meter as the same was defective. Instead of rectifying the meter, and a reference under Section 26(6) to the Electrical Inspector, arbitrarily the demand has been raised. Before raising the demand, no notice was issued to the respondent which is in clear violation of the principles of natural justice. As the respondent was denied opportunity of placing his stand before the demand was raised, the same cannot be maintained being in violation of the principles of natural justice. Question as to when action in terms of Section 26(6) of the Act is to be taken has been considered by this Court in many cases.(Paras 7 and 8)
In State of W.B. and Ors. v. Rupa Ice Factory (P) Ltd. and Ors. (2004 (10) SCC 635) it was observed as follows:
"5. As regards the second claim, namely, the claim for the period from December 1993 to December 1995, the finding of the High Court is that the a Vigilance Squad had found that Respondent 1 had tapped the electric energy directly from the transformer to the LT distribution board bypassing the meter circuit. If that is so, we do not know as to why the High Court would go on to advert to Section 26 of the Electricity Act and direct reference to the Electrical Inspector for decision under Section 26(6). In two decisions of this Court in M.P Electricity Board v. Basaniibai and J.M.D. Alloys Ltd. v. Bihar SEB it has been held that in cases of tampering or theft or pilferage of electricity, the demand raised falls outside the scope of Section 26 of the Electricity Act. If that is so, neither the limitation period mentioned in Section 26 of the Electricity Act nor the procedure for raising demand for electricity consumed would arise at all, In this view of the matter, that part of the order of the Division Bench of the High Court, directing that there should be a reference to the Electrical Inspector, shall stand set aside. In other respects the order of the High Court shall remain undisturbed. The appeal is allowed accordingly."(Para 9)
Though strong reliance was placed by learned counsel for the respondent on a decision in M.P.E.B. & Ors. v. Smt. Basantibai (AIR 1988 SC 71) more particularly, paragraph 13 thereof, a bare reading of the decision shows that the same did not relate to a case of tampering and, therefore, has no application to the present case. (Para 10)
Above being the position, the District Forum, State Commission and the Commission were not justified in holding that a reference in terms of Section 26(6) of the Act was called for. The orders passed by these authorities are quashed.(Para 11)
JUDGMENT
Arijit Pasayat, J. - Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (in short the Commission). By the impugned order, the Commission dismissed the revision petition filed in terms of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the Act).
3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
The respondent is a consumer of electricity and a meter was installed by the appellant at his factory premises. An inspection was done on 04.07.2000. The Inspecting staff found that there was tampering with the meter and, therefore, a demand of Rs.1,07,326/- was made purporting to be charges payable for actual consumption of energy. Questioning the demand, a complaint was filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Yamuna Nagar, Jagadhiri, Haryana (in short District Forum).
4. The basic stand of the respondent as complainant was that prior to the inspection, on 02.07.2000 there was a sparking in the C.T. Box installed at his factory premises and the complainant immediately informed the appellant and requested for rectification of the defect. The complainant had also given a letter dated 2.7.2000 to the department in this behalf and since the meter was defective the appellant should have rectified the meter. Instead of doing that, the demand was raised for alleged tampering with the meter. With reference to the inspection report it was averred that the seals were found intact and, therefore, there was no question of any tampering. It was, therefore, prayed that reference should be made to the Electrical Inspector for action in terms of Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (in short the Act). It was further submitted that notice was to be given before raising of demand. This was stated to be in line with principles of natural justice and statutory prescriptions. The said prayer was rejected by the present appellant taking the stand that in case of tampering there was no question of any reference to the Electrical Inspector. The District Forum found substance in the complaint filed by the respondent and held that the demand was illegal and instead reference ought to have been made in terms of Section 26(6) of the Act.
5. An appeal was filed by the appellant herein before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (in short the State Commission). The appeal under Section 15 of the Act was dismissed by the State Commission holding that the direction given by the District Forum was in order and action in terms of Section 26(6) of the Act was required to be taken. A revision was filed before the Commission which, as noted above, has been dismissed holding that proper direction has been given by the District Forum which was upheld by the State Commission.
6. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in case of tampering there was no scope for reference to the Electrical Inspector in terms of Section 26(6). Notice is to be given only when there is a default in payment of the demand raised and in cases of this nature, no notice is required.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that this is not a case of tampering. The respondent had, two days prior to the inspection, requested the authorities to verify the meter as the same was defective. Instead of rectifying the meter, and a reference under Section 26(6) to the Electrical Inspector, arbitrarily the demand has been raised. Before raising the demand, no notice was issued to the respondent which is in clear violation of the principles of natural justice. As the respondent was denied opportunity of placing his stand before the demand was raised, the same cannot be maintained being in violation of the principles of natural justice.
8. Question as to when action in terms of Section 26(6) of the Act is to be taken has been considered by this Court in many cases. (See Bombay Electricity Supply and Trans
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
