The court emphasized the need for exemplary damages in cases of harassment by public authorities, as established in Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta.

P.D. Shenoy, Member

1. This is a case wherein a consumer who was a Government servant was not issued the Electricity Bill for several years and was forced to pay the amount demanded by the Electricity Department of Union Territory of Chandigarh, when he had to obtain 'no due certificate' from them, to get his superannuation benefits.

Brief facts of the case :

2. Mr. V.P. Aggarwal, the complainant was allotted Government accommodation at Section 39B, Chandigarh on rental basis during the year 1994, which remained under his occupation upto 27.3.2000. An electricity meter was installed in the said house by the Electricity Department of Chandigarh Administration. Despite several visits and letters to the electricity department the bills for consumption of electricity charges were not issue till the time of his superannuation. On his retirement he had to vacate the house and also to produce a no clue certificate from the concerned department to secure his superannuation benefits. At the time of vacation the Electricity "Department issued a bill of Rs. 26,408 on average basis instead of actual consumption basis. The complainant had no other go but to deposit the amount. He requested the Electricity Department to refund the security deposit and also to charge on actual consumption basis.

3. Since the Electricity Department did not pay heed to his requests he filed a complaint before the District Forum contesting that he should be charged on actual basis and not on average basis. The department contended before the District Forum that they have charged on average basis i.e., 250 units per month on the basis of load sanctioned and the complainant was asked to deposit the amount of Rs. 26,408. However, they submitted that they are ready to refund the security deposit as and when an application is made. The District Forum held that meter reading showed 961 units which cannot be accepted as the meter was found defective; the figure is abnormally low; and the amount charged by the Electricity Department works out to approximately Rs. 350 per month which was not on the higher side and accordingly dismissed the complaint.

4. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum he filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission partially allowed the appeal and directed that the Electricity Department shall refund the deposit with interest and also to pay Rs. 5,000 as compensation for the complainant's mental agony with Rs. 500 as litigation expenses. Dissatisfied with the order of the State Commission, the complainant has come up in revision before us.

Findings:

Recovery of electric consumption charges :

(a) It is not disputed that the complainant was in occupation of the house for six years and also that the meter was defective. After a lot of persuasion the Electricity Department replaced the same after approximately 2 years i.e., on 6.4.1996. At the time of retirement the meter showed a reading of 961 units which cannot be construed as correct by any stretch of imagination. Hence, the recovery of electric charges on the basis of the average consumption does not call for any interference.

Compensation:

(b) However, the perusal of the records indicates the callous attitude of the Electricity Department at Chandigarh which originally provided a defective meter which was further replaced by another defective meter and several requests by the complainant were not responded of by it and, ultimately, when the complainant was forced to get a no due certificate from the department at the time of his superannuation, they used this opportunity to collect the dues in lumpsum. Hence, we feel that the compensation awarded by the State Commission for the mental trauma and agony undergone by the complainant is inadequate.

5. For such type of cases exemplary damages are required to be awarded. In such a case, Apex Court in Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, III observed:

The jurisdiction and power of the Courts to indemnify a citizen for injur