Back
UTTRAKHAND STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
B.C. Kandpal, President and Mr. C.C. Pant, Member
NITESH MALIK (DR.) - Appellant
Versus
UTTARAKHAND POWER CORPORATION LTD. AND OTHERS - Respondents
Miscellaneous Application No. 13 of 2013
Decided on : 18-02-2014
Mr. B.L. Seth, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. S.M. Jain, Advocate, for the Respondent
The judgment establishes the principle that deliberate disobedience of a Commission's order can lead to contempt proceedings and imposition of fines under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Disobedience of Commission's Order - Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - [Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. v. Dr. Nitesh Malik] - [Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986] - The court found that the officials of the Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. disobeyed the order of the Commission by disconnecting the electricity connection of the complainant despite the interim relief granted by the Commission. The court held the officials guilty of flouting the order and imposed a fine of Rs. 5,000 on each of them.
Fact of the Case:
Dr. Nitesh Malik filed a consumer complaint against Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. for changing his electricity category to 'commercial use' and showing arrears in the bill. Despite an interim relief granted by the Commission, the officials disconnected the electricity connection, leading to the present application under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the officials guilty of flouting the Commission's order and imposed a fine of Rs. 5,000 on each of them. The Lineman was exonerated from the contempt proceedings.
Issues: Disobedience of Commission's order, conditional apology by the officials, and the timing of the electricity disconnection.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the officials deliberately flouted the interim order and made a mockery of the majesty of law by not restoring the power supply of the applicant. The power of contempt was invoked to punish the offenders for their wilful disobedience and obstruction to the majesty of law.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the application, held the officials guilty of flouting the order, and imposed a fine of Rs. 5,000 on each of them. The Lineman was exonerated from the contempt proceedings.
ORDER
Mr. Justice B.C. Kandpal, President - Dr. Nitesh Malik, S/o Sh. Jitendra Kumar, R/o 56, Rajdhani Enclave, G.M.S. Road, Near Balliwala Chowk, Dehradun, who has filed a consumer complaint No. 306 of 2013 before the District Forum, Dehradun, has moved an application dated 23.8.2013 under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, stating therein that the following persons have disobeyed the order dated 13.8.2013 passed by this Commission in Revision Petition No. 10 of 2013 and hence action be taken against them under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
| 1. | Uttarakhand Power Corpora-tion Ltd., Urja Bhawan, Kanwali Road, Dehradun |
| 2. | Mr. Ravi Kumar Rajora, Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division (South), Uttarakhand Power Corpo-ration Ltd., 18 E.C. Road, Dehradun |
| 3. | Mr. Sunil Pokhriyal, S.D.O.. Electricity Distribution Division (South), Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd., Vasant Vihar, Dehradun |
| 4. | Mr. Upendra, Junior Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division (South), Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd., Vasant Vihar, Dehradun |
| 5. | Lineman, Electricity Distri-bution Division (South), Uttarakhand Power Corpora-tion Ltd., Vasant Vihar, Dehradun. |
2. The said application was registered as Miscellaneous Application No. 13 of 2013 and notices were issued to the persons impleaded in this case. In reply to the notices, joint objections were filed by the aforesaid persons, which is at Paper Nos. 21 to 24.
3. The background of this case is that the applicant Dr. Nitesh Malik has taken an electricity connection No. 6135/126835 from the Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. (for short "UPCL") for a sanctioned load of 3 KW. The electricity connection was inspected by the officials of the UPCL on 4.7.2012 and on the basis of this inspection, a provisional assessment for Rs. 1,28,194 was made by the Executive Engineer and Assessing Officer-opposite party No, 2 (Paper No. 38). After adjusting the payments made by the applicant in earlier bills, a final assessment for Rs. 1,03,186 was made vide order dated 21.7.2012 (Paper No. 40). The applicant remitted an amount of Rs. 10,000 through a demand draft, but the Executive Engineer-opposite party No. 2 did not accept it and returned it to the applicant (Paper No. 42). The applicant, vide several letters sent to UPCL submitted that he is not making any unauthorized use of electricity; that he has already applied to the UPCL for increasing the electricity load and that the use of electricity by doctors in their clinics comes under the category of "domestic use" and not under the category of "commercial use". But the Electricity Department, without rejecting these representations by assigning some cogent and logical reasons, issued a bill for the period from 3.4.2013 to 22.6.2013 by changing the applicant's category to "commercial use" and an arrear of Rs. 1,15,608 was shown against him in the bill. When the officials of the UPCL neither listened to the applicant nor corrected the bills, the applicant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum. Dehradun. The applicant had also moved an application for seeking interim relief that the UPCL be directed not to disconnect his electricity connection during the pendency of the case. Since, the District Forum was not functional due to lack of Coram, the Member of the District Forum vide his order dated 12.7.2013, fixed the next date of hearing on 19.8.2013. Upon this, the applicant filed a Revision Petition No. 10 of 2013 before this Commission along with the prayer that interim relief to the effect that his connection be not disconnected till the disposal of the case. This Commission, after going through the record, observed that it was in the interest of justice to grant such an interim relief to the applicant and passed the following order on 13.8.2013:
"13.8.13
Mr.
