State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Hj & Company Through Its Partner ... vs The Sub- Divisional Engineer on 19 December, 2025
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
CHANDIGARH
REVISION PETITION NO. SC/4/RP/22/2023
HJ & COMPANY THROUGH ITS PARTNER JASKARAN SINGH
PRESENT ADDRESS - SCO NO. 1038-1039, SECTOR 22-B, CHANDIGARH,CHANDIGARH.
.......Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE SUB- DIVISIONAL ENGINEER
PRESENT ADDRESS - ELECTRICITY OPERATIONAL SUB DIVISION NO 1, SECTOR 23,
CHANDIGARH,CHANDIGARH.
RAJNISH KUMAR
PRESENT ADDRESS - HOUSE NO. 2512 SECTOR 19C CHANDIGARH,CHANDIGARH.
.......Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI , PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MR. PREETINDER SINGH , MEMBER
FOR THE PETITIONER:
SHREY GOEL (Advocate)
DATED: 19/12/2025
ORDER
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH Revision Petition No. : 22 of 2023 Date of Institution : 29.05.2023 Date of Decision : 19.12.2025 HJ & Company, SCO No. 1038-1039, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh, through its Partner Jaskaran Singh S/o Amarjit Singh. (Mob: 9889555300) ...Revision Petitioner/Complainant Versus The Sub-Divisional Engineer, Electricity (Operational) Sub Division No. 1, Sector -23, Chandigarh.
.....Respondent Rajnish Kumar S/o Yashpal Sharma R/o House no. 2512, Sector 19 C, Chandigarh.
...Proforma Respondent
BEFORE: JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT
MR.PREETINDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present:- Sh. Shrey Goel and Sh.Shvetanshu Goel, Advocate for the revision petitioner.
Sh.Nitin Bhasin, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Respondent No.2 proceeded against exparte vide order dated 15.09.2023.
JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT.
This revision petition has been filed by the revision petitioner/complainant challenging the order dated 21.04.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh (the then District Forum, now referred to in short as the District Commission), vide which miscellaneous application no.4 of 2019 filed by it for permission to appear and contest the main consumer complaint bearing no.560 of 1997 was dismissed.
2. Before the District Commission, the applicant had made averments in the application that in the year 1998, the opposite party raised an electricity bill of approximately Rs.1,98,000/- against the then consumer, Sh. Rajnish Kumar, without any fault on his part. Aggrieved, Sh. Rajnish Kumar approached the District Commission. Vide order dated 07.11.2007, the District Commission directed the Electrical Inspector to decide the dispute within two months and stayed recovery of the subject amount. However, the dispute was never adjudicated by the Electrical Inspector, UT, Chandigarh, and on 12.11.2012 it was stated during arbitration proceedings that the matter was not maintainable in view of the District Commissions' order dated 07.11.2007 and had become time-barred. The opposite party neither challenged the said order nor sought extension of time and continued to accept current electricity charges without the disputed amount. Despite this, the opposite party issued a bill dated 11.07.2014 reflecting a disputed amount of Rs.2,54,368/-, which was stayed by the District Commission. The then consumer deposited current charges as demanded, but the opposite party again raised a bill of Rs.2,76,008/- in September 2014. Thereafter, Sh. Rajnish Kumar approached the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF), which declined to decide the matter on the ground that it was pending before the District Commission. Subsequently, Sh. Rajnish Kumar vacated the premises and entered into a compromise deed dated 23.05.2017 with the owner, Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, who agreed to bear all liabilities arising out of the pending complaint. An application under Section 151 CPC was filed by Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, and vide order dated 23.02.2018, the matter was again referred to the CGRF. However, the CGRF dismissed the complaint vide order dated 19.07.2018 for want of jurisdiction. The present applicant purchased the premises on 14.07.2017 and claimed to have stepped into the shoes of the previous consumer/owner, seeking restoration of the original complaint and adjudication of the subject bill on merits.
3. The application was opposed by the non-applicant/opposite party on preliminary objections of maintainability and locus standi, contending that the applicant has no concern with the premises or the subject bill. It was admitted that the original complaint was filed by Sh. Rajnish Kumar and that the matter was referred to the Electrical Inspector. It was further stated that earlier applications filed by Sh. Rajnish Kumar and Sh. Sanjeev Kumar were duly disposed of, and that the present applicant has no legal right to seek restoration of the complaint. Prayer was made to dismiss the said application.
4. The District Commission after hearing the contesting parties on the application aforesaid dismissed it, as stated above.
5. Hence this revision petition.
6. We have heard the contesting parties and have also gone through the entire record of the case of the District Commission, which was requisitioned by us.
7. It is not in dispute that the District Commission passed order dated 13.12.2001 (Annexure P-1) in consumer complaint bearing no.560 of 1997, which stood disposed off and the matter was referred to Arbitrator Electrical Inspector as under:-
"...So in these premises we deem it expedient to direct that competent authority of Electricity department shall refer the dispute in question to the Arbitrator- Electrical Inspector with regard to the bill in question amounting to Rs.1,98,965/- and the said dispute shall be determined by the Electrical Inspector after affording opportunity to the parties, by giving a reasoned award, expeditiously preferably within six months. The complaint stands disposed of as such, however, without prejudice to the right of the complainant to seek remedy as permitted by law, if still he feels aggrieved of the award rendered by the Electrical Inspector/Arbitrator...."
8. Appeal bearing no.32 of 2022 filed by the complainant-Rajnish Kumar against the order dated 03.12.2001 was partly allowed by this Commission vide order dated 26.03.2002 (Annexure P-2) and the matter qua amount of disputed bill was ordered to be stayed till the matter is decided which was under
consideration of Arbitrator/Electrical Inspector.
9. It is clearly coming out from the record that the arbitrator passed first award on 25.07.2005 Annexure-F (at page 63 of the District Commission file) as under:-
"...The consumption recorded by the three new meters was added to the consumption recorded by original one and it is observed that there was drastic rise in the power consumption running as high as more than 6000 units a month during 9/96 to 11/96. Even if, we do not interfere in the consumption recorded by the other three newly installed meters, the consumption recorded by disputed meter was as high as 8650 units for two months which means 4325 units per month. The consumption pattern of the meter for load of 7.890 KW from 5/96 to 9/97 is an ample proof of its annual consumption, hence the average charged @ 2500 units per month needs to be revised especially when the connected load of the consumer remain unaltered i.e. 7.890 KW. Therefore, the average needs to be charged on the basis of consumption from 5/96 to 9/97....."
10. Since as per the complainant-Rajnish Kumar the matter was not decided by the Arbitrator Electrical Inspector, he (complainant-Rajnish Kumar) filed M.A. No.222 of 2005 before the District Commission, which was decided vide order dated 07.11.2007. It has been specifically mentioned in para no.3 of the order dated 07.11.2007 of the District Commission that it was admitted by the opposite party that arbitrator award dated 25.07.2005 was recalled and that the proceedings were again reopened. Ultimately, the District Commission again directed the Arbitrator Electrical Inspector to decide the dispute in 2 months, failing which, liberty was given to the complainant-Rajnish Kumar to approach the District Commission for decision of the dispute and it was disposed of, accordingly.
11. Thereafter, arbitration proceedings were initiated wherein, as per the minutes of arbitration proceeding held on 12.11.2012 (Annexure-P-5), it has been recorded that special directions were given by the District Commission to the arbitrator to decide the dispute within a period of 2 months, but no fresh hearing was held within the said period of two months. It was further observed that without the further directions of the District Commission in a time barred case, the arbitration proceedings are not maintainable. Relevant part of the said proceedings are reproduced hereunder:-
"....The arbitration proceedings were held on dated 12.11.2012 at 3:30 PM in the chamber of Electrical Inspector, UT. Chandigarh. The counsel for the applicant/consumer has drawn attention towards written arguments given by him on behalf of the consumer on 31.01.2008 and reiterated that Arbitrator has no jurisdiction to decide the matter as the Hon'ble Consumer Forum vide its order dated 07.11.2007 directed the Electrical Inspector to decide the dispute within a period of two months whereas the matter was not heard within a period of two months as directed by the Consumer Forum. The counsel for the consumer further pleaded that in case the arbitration proceedings are required to be initiated then directions from the Hon'ble Consumer Forum are required being a time barred case Accordingly, the said arbitration cannot be proceeded further being not maintainable in view of Hon'ble Consumer Forum Order dated 07.11.2007...".
12. Thereafter, again the matter was put before the Office of the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum, Chandigarh (CGRF, Chandigarh), under complaint no.714 (Annexure P-6) filed by the complainant- Rajnish Kumar, wherein, vide order dated 28.10.2015, it was clearly held by the CGRF, Chandigarh, that since the case is still pending with the District Commission, as such, CGRF, Chandigarh cannot take up this case. Accordingly, the said complaint stood disposed of, by the CGRF, Chandigarh.
Second complaint bearing no.CJ-114/2018 (Annexure P-9) filed by Sh.Sanjeev before the CGRF, Chandigarh was also disposed of, by the CGRF, Chandigarh vide order dated 19.07.2018 holding it as not maintainable on the same cause of action. Relevant part of the said order dated 19.07.2018 is reproduced hereunder:-
"..The hearing in the case was fixed for 12.07.2018, when both the parties were present. The Forum observed that a similar matter was presented before CGRF vide complaint no. 714 on 28.11.2014 in which this Forum has dismissed the complaint vide order dated 28.10.2015 as the same was non maintainable before CGRF. This complaint can also not be entertained by this Forum as the same cause of actions between the same parties and therefore it is dismissed being non maintainable...."
13. Under above circumstances, it can safely be said that though the awarded dated 25.07.2005 stood recalled, as explained above, yet, the District Commission fell into a grave error in dismissing the miscellaneous application vide order dated 21.04.2023, holding that it is not maintainable, as the award dated 25.7.2005 passed by the arbitrator has not been challenged before a competent court and also that the original complaint (CC/560/1997) has already been disposed of vide order dated 03.12.2001.
14. Resultantly, this Revision Petition stands allowed. The order dated 21.04.2023 passed by the District Commission in MA No.4 of 2019 in CC No.560 of 1997 is set aside. Consumer Complaint bearing no.560 of 1997 is ordered to be restored. The revisionist-H J & Company is permitted to appear and contest the main consumer complaint bearing no.560 of 1997 before the District Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh. District Commission-I, shall give due opportunities to the parties, as required under the Act and the consumer complaint be decided afresh on merits, in accordance with law. However, since this case is very old, as such, the District Commission shall try to decide the same, expeditiously, as required under the provisions of the Act.
15. However, it is made clear that any observation made in this order shall not have any bearing on the merits of the case.
16. The parties are directed to appear before the District Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh, on 29.12.2025 for further proceedings in the main consumer complaint.
17. This application stands disposed of, accordingly.
18. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge, as well as to the District Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh alongwith its record, forthwith, so as to reach well before the date fixed.
19. The parties be informed about the date fixed through their counsel, on their mobiles phone/whatsapp/email.
20. The revision file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Pronounced 19.12.2025 Sd/-
[JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI] PRESIDENT Sd/-
(PREETINDER SINGH) MEMBER Rg.
..................
JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI PRESIDENT ..................
PREETINDER SINGH MEMBER