National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Smt.Babita Aggarwal & Ors. vs Dr. S.K. Goel on 26 March, 2003
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 28 OF 1996 (From the order dated 1.9.95 in complaint case No.69/93 of the State Commission, Rajasthan) M/s. Guru Nanak Plastic Industries Appellant Vs. Chairman, Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Jaipur & Ors. Respondents BEFORE: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE D.P. WADHWA, PRESIDENT MRS. RAJYALAKSHMI RAO, MEMBER. MR. B.K. TAIMNI, MEMBER. HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. GUPTA, MEMBER. Electricity non-sanction of additional load to complainant civil suit filed and pending claim of compensation before Consumer Forum on the ground that new machinery installed remained idle because of non-sanction of additional load complaint dismissed on two grounds (i) likely conflict of decision in Civil Court and Consumer Forum and (ii) damages claimed too remote. For the appellant : Mr. D.M. Mathur, Advocate For the respondents : Mr. Shyam Moorjani, Advocate O R D E R
DATED THE 21st March, 2003 JUSTICE D.P. WADHWA, J.(PRESIDENT) It is the complainant who is appellant before us. His complaint for seeking compensation of Rs.8,99,540/- was dismissed by the State Commission. The complaint pertained to supply of electricity to the factory of the complainant. State Commission was of the view that the question whether the complainant committed malpractices and whether there was justification for the opposite parties - Electricity Department to send the disputed bill had to be decided and till those questions are decided the question of compensation could not be considered.
It was noticed that the complainant had already filed a civil suit on the same questions and that it was open to the complainant to amend the plaint and also pray for sanction of the increased load and for compensation. State Commission was thus of the view that the dispute raised in the complaint could be resolved by the Civil Court.
Complainant had 25 H.P. electricity to his factory premises. Its case was that it wanted to install a new machinery of the value of Rs.2,63,000/- and for that it required additional load of electricity. For this purpose it approached the Electricity Department and deposited the requisite amount. Before the load could be released an inspection of the factory premises of the complainant was done and it was found that it was already unauthorisedly using load of 53 HP. Complainant was asked to deposit the additional amount of Rs.5,565/- which the complainant resisted and filed a complaint for compensation of Rs.8,99,540/- on the ground that his new machinery remained idle. On the other hand it was the case of the Electricity Department that the complainant was making unauthorise use of 53 HP and it was given notice to deposit the additional amount and it was also brought to the notice that in case it failed to do that, a bill will be raised for the extra amount of electricity being utilised by it. Complainant went to the Civil Court and in the plaint it said that it never consumed additional electricity of 53 H.P. and any demand on that basis was incorrect and it challenged extra payment on that account. He sought an injunction restraining Electricity Department for recovering any extra amount as in the bill of May 1993 the amount had been added regarding extra load of electricity unauthorisedly used by the complainant.
State Commission was of the view that since the issues involved in the complainant before it were same as in the plaint pending before the Civil Court, it should not adjudicate on the same dispute.
In our view, State Commission was right. There is possibility of conflicting findings as the issues before the State Commission and the Civil Court were same. Moreover, claim of compensation of Rs.8,99,540/- was remote claim and could not be claimed on the plea that the new machinery remained idle. Even otherwise, such a claim could not have been decided in the summary jurisdiction of a Consumer Forum. Mr. Mathur, learned counsel for the appellant drew our attention to the decision of the three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Sat Pal Mohindra vs Surindra Timber Stores (civil Appeal no.2233 of 1999 wherein the Supreme Court held that the relief claimed in the civil suit and before the Consumer Forum were of different type and that would not oust the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum. That is not the issue before us. Here the claim of compensation is based on the non-sanctioning of additional load on account of the fact that complainant was unauthorisedly using 53 H.P. electric supply which was the issue in the Civil Court. Further as noted above, compensation claimed is quite remote and could not be co-related to the non-supply of electricity which also require great deal of evidence and should not have been decided in the summary jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum.
In our view decision of the Supreme Court is not applicable to the present case. We, therefore, find no merit in this appeal and it is dismissed.
J ( D.P. WADHWA) PRESIDENT .
(RAJYALAKSHMI RAO) MEMBER (B.K. TAIMNI) MEMBER J. (K.S. GUPTA) MEMBER