National Consumer Disputes Redressal
V.P. Aggarwal vs Chief Engineer, Electricity ... on 7 December, 2005
Equivalent citations: I(2006)CPJ90(NC), [2006(2)JCR265(NULL)]
ORDER
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 injury suffered due to abuse of power by public authorities is founded as observed by Lord Hailsham in cassel & Co. Ltd. v. Brooms 1972 AC 1027 : (1972) 1 All ER 801 on the principal that, 'an award of exemplary damages can serve a useful purpose in vindicating the strength of law'. An ordinary citizen or a common man is hardly equipped to match the might of the State or its instrumentalities. That is provided by the rule of law. It acts as a check on arbitrary and capricious exercise of power. In Rookes v. Barnard 1964 AC 1129 : (1964) 1 All ER 367, 410 it was observed by Lord Devlin, 'the servants of the Government are also the servants of the people and the use of their power must always be subordinate to their duty of service'. A public functionary if he acts maliciously or, oppressively and the exercise of power results in harassment and agony then it is not an exercise of power but its abuse. No law provides protection against it. He who is responsible for it must suffer it. Compensation or damage as explained earlier may arise even when the officer discharges his duty honestly and bona fide. But when it arises due to arbitrary or capricious behaviour then it loses its individual character and assumes social significance. Harassment of a common man by public authorities is socially abhorring and legally impermissible. It may harm him personally but the injury to society is far more grievous. Crime and corruption thrive and prosper in the society due to lack of public resistance. Nothing is more damaging than the feeling of helplessness. An ordinary citizen instead of complaining and fighting succumbs to the pressure of undesirable functioning of offices instead of standing against it. Therefore, the award of compensation for harassment by public authorities not only compensates the individual, satisfies him personally but helps in curing social evil. It may result in improving ' the work culture and help in changing the outlook. Wade in his book Administrative Law has observed that it is to the credit of public authorities that there are simply few reported English decisions on this form of malpractice, namely, misfeasance in public offices which includes malicious use of power, deliberate maladministration and perhaps also other unlawful acts causing injury. One of the reasons for this appears to be development of law which, apart, from other factors succeeded in keeping a salutary check on the functioning in the government or semi-government offices by holding the officers personally responsible for their capricious or even ultra vires action resulting in injury or loss to a citizen by awarding damages against them....
(Emphasis supplied)
6. 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 to which he had not succumbed.
7. Accordingly, we modify the order passed by the State Commission and direct the respondent to pay a compensation by enhancing the amount from Rs. 5,000 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.