Back
2006 (1) CPR 184 (NC)
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
NEW DELHI
M.B. Shah, President and Dr. P.D. Shenoy, Member
Shri V.P. Aggarwal—Petitioner
versus
Chief Engineer, Electricity Deptt. U.T. Chandigarh & Ors.—Respondents
Revision Petition No. 1181 of 2004
Decided on 7-12-2005
(ii)Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 21(b) and 14(1)(d) — Award of exemplary damages — Electricity bills for six years not given to complainant despite several requests — Meter found defective — Replaced with defective meter — Then same officers coming to settle without meter which he had not accepted — Whether entitled to exemplary damages ? (Yes) 1994 (1) SCC 243 at 262-63 (relied on) [Ed. Note: How covered by proviso to Section 14(1)(d)].
Held: This case illustrates that a person in Government position can also be harassed by the public functionary for reasons unbelievable or unknown. Electricity bills for six years were not given to the complainant. It is the say of the complainant that he had requested the concerned officers to issue the same, but some officers were coming at his residence and trying to get it settled, which he had not succumbed.(Para 8)
Held also: Hence we feel that the compensation awarded by the State Commission for the mental trauma and agony undergone by the complainant is inadequate.(Para 6)
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, (1994) 1 SCC 243.(Para 7)
Held finally : Accordingly, we modify the order passed by the State Commission and direct the respondent to pay a compensation by enhancing the amount from Rs. 5000/- to Rs. 50,000/- to the petitioner. The rest of the order passed by the State Commission is confirmed. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.(Para 9)
Result : Revision partly allowed.
Dr. P.D. Shenoy, Member — 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. Shri V.P. Aggarwal, the complainant was allotted Government accommodation at Section 39 B, Chandigarh on rental basis during the year 1994, which remained under his occupation upto 27.03.2000. 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 issued till the time of his superannuation. On his retirement he had to vacate the house and also to produce a no due 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. 5000/- 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 :
5. 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 06.04.1996. 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.
6. 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 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 lump-sum. Hence we feel that the compensation awarded by the State Commission for the mental trauma and agony undergone by the complainant is inadequate.
7. 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 Gupta1
observed:
‘The jurisdiction and power of the Courts to indemnify a
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
