Judgement Key Points

Honble CHAUHAN, J.–Slapped with an unusually high electricity bill, threatened with disconnection of his electricity connection, trying to save himself and his family, literally and figuratively, from being plunged into darkness, the appellant has been running from one Court to another. The appellant has challenged the Order dated 26.4.2006 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Bharatpur, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the temporary injunction application filed by the appellant under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code (henceforth to be referred to as `the Code, for short).

(2). In a nutshell the facts of the case are that the appellant has a modest home in Bharatpur. He also has an electricity connection, connection Account No.1512/18100104. The respondent has also installed an electric Meter, bearing No. 559920 at his house. The electrical connection is for `domestic purpose. The appellant had religiously paid his electric bills to the respondent. In February 2003, the meter recorded as 17695. Thus, in one month, the appellant had consumed 700 units. Hence, the respondent sent a electric bill for Rs.2145/- to the appellant. According to the appellant this was the `normal bill that he had been receiving for the last few years. Therefore, the appellant paid the said bill. However, on 19.3.2003, the respondents officer illegally removed the electric meter ostensibly on the ground that the appellant had tampered with the meter. According to them, the body seal and the terminal seal were tempered with. But, the officers assured the appellant that a new meter would be installed immediately. But, the meter was not restored. In May 2003, the appellant received an electric bill based on `minimum charges. He paid the same. To his great shock and dismay, suddenly in September 2003, the appellant received a notice from the respondent, notice dated 29.9.2003, demanding Rs.22,000/- as `settlement amount for the misuse of energy. He also received a supplementary bill for consumption of 1,59,280 units of electricity. The appellant immediately rushed to the District Consumer Forum in order to challenge the said notice and the supplementary bill. According to him, before the notice and the supplementary bill could be issued, the meter had to be tested by an Electrical Inspector. As the Electrical Inspector had not tested the functions of the electric meter, the notice and the supplementary bill could not be issued. Vide Order dated 30.10.2003, the learned Forum stayed the recovery of the amount. On 13.11.2003, the appellant submitted an application for restoration of the electricity supply, which was duly allowed. A new meter was finally installed. The appellant has been paying the electricity bill regularly since then. However, vide order dated 12.1.2006, the learned Forum has dismissed the appellants complaint on the ground of `jurisdiction. Before the learned Forum, the respondent had taken the plea that as the case involved disputed questions of facts, as it required detailed evidence, the summary procedure prevalent in the Forum was unsuitable for the adjudication of the case. According to them, only the civil courts could adjudicate the case. Agreeing with the respondents contention, the learned Forum dismissed the appellants complaint. As soon as the complaint was dismissed, the respondent disconnected the meter. The appellant and his family were left in the dark.

(3). Therefore, immediately the appellant filed a suit for declaration and for permanent injunction. Along with the suit, the appellant also filed an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the Code. The respondent filed its written statement and contended that at the time of checking of the meter the body seal and the terminal were found to be tempered and VCR was made on 19.3.2003. They also contended that no injunction could be issued against them as the demand made against the appellant is of Rs.22,000/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document