National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. vs Rameshwar Prasad Vaishnav And Ors. on 14 March, 2007
Equivalent citations: II(2007)CPJ280(NC)
ORDER
S.N. Kapoor, J. (Presiding Member)
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
2. Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jodhpur in Appeal No. 1218 of 1994 dated 12.12.2000 setting aside the order passed by the District Forum dismissing the complaint and awarding compensation of Rs. 3,000 with cost of Rs. 2,000. The petitioner is further aggrieved by the direction to issue notice under Section 340, Cr.P.C. to the Executive Engineer, Rajasthan State Electricity Board and the Asstt. Engineer, Jaitaran who appeared to be guilty of forging the documents.
3. First, the brief facts in this matter are that Mangal Das, the predecessor in-interest of the present respondent applied for domestic electric connection on 1.12.1987 and deposited Rs. 85 as demanded vide notice dated 22.2.1988 on 24.2.1988. The respondent did not take any action. Ultimately, he had to file civil suit for the respondent were not releasing the electric connection in time. He, therefore, prayed for direction to the respondents to provide electric connection to him and also to pay a sum of Rs. 51,000 towards mental agony and discomfort.
4. The present petitioner/opposite party opposed the complaint, inter alia on the ground for the complainant had been provided with a electric connection on 7.11.1988. However, in other reply filed by them on 25.5.1993, it was claimed by the present petitioner that the connection was provided on 7.9.1988 and still further the date of connection was mentioned 25.3.1988. It was claimed that since the complainant did not pay the dues against him, his electric connection had been disconnected.
5. The District Forum dismissed the complaint assuming that electric connection has been installed.
6. The State Commission accepted the appeal of the complainant and passed the order as mentioned hereinabove.
7. We have heard the parties Counsel and gone through the record.
8. It is apparent from the perusal of the documents, particularly, the bills that the observations of the learned State Commission were justified. The learned Counsel for the respondent pointed out discrepancies in the dates of the allegedly installed electric connection. The learned Counsel for the petitioner could not satisfy us as to why the three dates were mentioned at 3 different stages, if the electric connection was installed on one date. It is apparent, therefore, that the case of the petitioner was based on shifting stands. The State Commission, particularly, enquired that if any officer of the Department had filed his affidavit in support of the replies filed. No affidavit of any officer was made available by the learned Counsel who argued before the State Commission. However, on instructions, the learned Counsel for the complainant/ appellant before the State Commission produced the original bills and the original bills gave a different type of story.
9. It was apparent before the State Commission as well as before us for the Counsel for the respondent found himself in embarassing position in explaining the bills alleged to be totally forged. It is apparent that the first revised bill was issued on 22nd December, 1988 indicating that the date of electric connection as 7.11.1988. It indicated that the pastmeter reading was 3-4 units and the present reading was 14 units. But the revised bill though indicated consumption of 11 units but the bill was reduced to Rs. 10 towards electricity charges from Rs. 46; meter rent to Rs. 6 as against Rs. 28, Sthai Seva Shulk to Rs. 6 from Rs. 28. However, the revised bill was issued for a sum of Rs. 10 to Rs. 22.77. Unrevised bill indicated the date of connection as 25th March, 1988. Thereafter, another bill dated 30th December, 1988 would indicate would indicate past reading as well as the present reading as 16 units but Rs. 20 was charged for electricity charges and Rs. 12 towards meter rent and Rs. 12 as Sthai Seva Shulk, in all Rs. 44 for the relevant period plus Rs. 110.00 unpaid balance of Rs. 110 making a total bill of Rs. 154.9. This balance did not tally with the revised bill dated 22.12.1988 or with the earlier bill of 22.12.1988. Then the bill dated 28.4.1989 indicated past reading as 16 units, present reading as 16 units and in respect of payment, both the dates indicated 22 but in this bill an arrears of Rs. 94.95 and Rs. 66.91 and this present and past reading continued as 16 units in the bills dated 30.6.1989 and 29.8.1989, No bill has been filed between 30th December and 28th April, 1989, Bills of May, July and from September to January, 1990 have also not been filed, The Asstt. Engineer who Issued these bills had not filed any affidavit. No document had been filed to indicate Installation of the electric connection at any stage. Therefore, in the aforesaid circumstances, we do not think that there is any reason for us to take any view different from the view taken by the learned State Commission.
10. The next submission of the learned Counsel was that the direction to issue notice under Section 340 Cr.P.C., the Executive Engineer and Asstt. Engineer were not called for. We are slightly inhibited to agree with the learned Counsel for the petitioner. However, he has placed reliance on the judgment of this Commission in the case of Reliance India Mobile Ltd. v. Hari Chand Gupta S/o Shri Sharvan Kumar III (2006) CPJ 73 (NC), (R.P. No. 53 of 2006 decided on 8.5.2006). The relevant paras as mentioned hereinbelow:
12. Further, normally, in such type of cases it would be futile to initiate proceedings under Section 340, Cr.P.C. Law on this subject is settled by decision of the Larger Bench of the Apex Court in Iqbal Singh Marwah and Anr. v. Meenakshi Marwah and Anr. , wherein it is observed that "Judicial notice could be taken of the fact that the Courts are normally reluctant to direct filing of a criminal complaint and such a course is rarely adopted." Further, after considering various decisions, the Court in Pr. 23 held as under:
23. In view of the language used in Section 340, Cr.P.C. the Court is not bound to make a complaint regarding commission on an offence referred to in Section 195(1)(b), as the section is conditioned by the words "Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice. This shows that such a course will be adopted only if the interest of justice requires and not in every case. Before filing of the complaint, the Court may hold a preliminary inquiry and record a finding to the effect that it is expedient in the interest of justice that inquiry should be made into any of the offences referred to in Section 195(1)(b). This expediency will normally be judged by the Court by weighing not the magnitude of injury suffered by the person affected by such forgery or forged document, but having regard to the effect or impact. Such Commission of offence has upon administration of justice. It is possible that such forged document or forgery may cause a very serious or substantial injury to a person in the sense that it may deprive him of a very valuable property or status or the like, but such document may be just a piece of evidence produced or given in evidence in Court, where voluminous evidence may have been adduced and the effect of such piece of evidence on the broad concept of administration of justice may be minimal. In such circumstances, the Court may not consider it expedient in the interest of justice to make a complaint. The broad view of Clause (b)(ii), as canvassed by learned Counsel for the appellants, would render the victim of such forgery or forged document remediless. Any interpretation which leads to a situation when a victim of a crime is rendered remediless, has to be discarded.
13. Finally It la held (in para 33) that Section 195(1)(b)(11), Cr.P.C, would be attracted only when the offences enumerated in the said provision have been committed with respect to a document after it has been produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court, i.e., during the time when the document was in custodia legis.
14. In the present case, the alleged bills were all throughout in existence even prior to the filing of the complaint. Therefore, it was open to the complainant to file a private complaint, if aggrieved.
15. However, for filing false and incorrect affidavit before the Consumer Fora that the telephone was shifted from Chandigarh to Kurukshetra, appropriate action is required to be taken against the petitioner. It should be borne in mind that Consumer Fora are required to decide the matter speedily and render equitable justice to the consumer. The practice of making false and incorrect statements and the practice of denial of each and every sentence submitted by the claimant/complainant without any justifiable ground, requires to be controlled. For false affidavits or misleading statements in a pending proceedings deponents are required to be dealt appropriately by imposing punitive damages so that in future they or others may not indulge in such practice.
16. In this view of the matter, punitive damages are required to be enhanced.
11. In view of the above, we feel that prayer limited to a direction about Issuing of notice under Section 340, Cr, P.C, should be set aside, for It would be required to be proceeded with the query as to who prepared the allegedly forged bills, who signed them and all these persons are also not before who purports have signed them. For this purpose, we feel that we should leave the petitioner to hold departmental inquiry, to fix responsibility of the concerned individual and recover the amount, which the petitioner is directed to pay, in view of the attempt made before the State Commission as well as before us to mislead us by giving three dates of the installation of the electric connection by issuing of bills indicating inherently and crudely forged and the alleged disconnection and since the complainant and legal representatives of Mangal Das have been deprived of the electric connection since December, 1988, we direct the respondents to pay punitive damages of Rs. 1,50,000. Since, the wrong committed was a wrong done to the public by wasting time and energy of the District Forum, the State Commission and this Commission, out of the above amount Rs. 1.00 lakh shall be deposited with the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission for the purpose of creating a Consumer Legal Aid Cell to provide Amicus Curiae to represent needy litigants and Rs. 50,000 shall be paid as compensation to Rameshwar Prasad Vaishnav for the benefit of all the legal representatives of Mangal Das as awarded by the learned State Commission to the complainant/legal representative(s) who have been brought on record.
12. For the aforesaid reasons, the revision petition is partly allowed. The order to issue notice under Section 340, Cr.P.C. against the Executive Engineer and Asstt. Engineer is set aside. Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. may recover this amount of Rs. 1,50,000 from the officers concerned after holding due inquiry in terms of the judgment in the case of Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta . The revision petition stands disposed of in the above terms.