Delhi District Court
Sewa Singh vs Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd on 6 February, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAHUL BHATIA ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE01, SOUTH EAST DISTRICT,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
RCA DJ-07/23
Sewa Singh
S/o late Mussadi Lal
R/o -38, Summan Bazar,
Jungpura, Bhogal,
New Delhi-110014. ..Appellant
Vs.
BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.
Through its Chairman/Principal Officer
BSES Bhawan, New Delhi-110019. ..Respondent
Date of Institution : 01.02.2023
Date of Reserving judgment : 16.01.2024
Date of Judgment : 06.02.2024
JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal has been filed against the impugned order dated 21.12.2022 passed by Ld. Civil Judge whereby Ld. Trial Court has been pleased to reject the plaint of plaintiff under provisions of Order VII Rule 11 CPC being barred by law.
2. The case of the plaintiff is that plaintiff is in possession of the suit property and due to various fluctuations in the electric current and also high voltage in different phases, some personnel of respondent came to his residence on 20.05.2011. After checking electricity meter bearing No.23765120 connection no.2540C7111019 installed at the first floor of the house No. R/o 38, Summan Bazar, Jungpura, Bhogal, New Delhi-110014., it RCA DJ-07/2023 SEWA SINGH VS. BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD. Page 1 of 8 was noted that reading was 3428. Thereafter, the said meter was replaced with a new meter. The previous meter of appellant was taken to laboratory and appellant was given meter change report, inspection report and some connected documents. Thereafter, officials of respondent passed speaking order as per inspection report dated 25.05.2011 and it was found that on 03.06.2011, meter was showing a date of 25.12.2001 and defect was found on terminal block of the meter and it was declared to be a tampered meter. Thereafter, respondent raised a bill in the sum of Rs.46,945/- and sent legal notice dated 06.03.2011 to the plaintiff through their advocate. Thereafter, new meter was disconnected and final bill of Rs.2330/- was issued with the due date of 23.03.2014. Thereafter, appellant filed civil suit bearing No. 71/2012 which was dismissed due to the Court not having jurisdiction vide order dated 14.10.2013. The appellant thereafter approached the District Consumer Forum. There also the matter was dismissed and the appellant was given liberty to approach appropriate court. Based upon said liberty, the appellant had approached the Ld. Trial Court.
3. On appearance, defendant filed Written Statement along with application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The Ld. Trial Court was pleased to allow the said application and dismissed the suit on the ground that present dispute is covered under Sections 126 & 127 of the Electricity Act and by Section 145 of the Electricity Act, a civil court has no powers to entertain any suit in reference to matters covered under Sections 126 & 127 of the Electricity Act. The Ld. Trial Court has placed reliance upon judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of BL RCA DJ-07/2023 SEWA SINGH VS. BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD. Page 2 of 8 Kantroo Vs. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd., 2008 Law Suit (Del) 1967.
4. The appellant has assailed the order of the Ld. Trial Cort on the grounds that the Ld. Trial Court did not appreciate the correct law and ignored the judgment relied upon by plaintiff passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sau Rajani Vs. Sau Smita & Anr., 2022 Live Law (SC) 702. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for appellant that the jurisdiction of the civil court is expansive in nature and the onus to prove the ouster of jurisdiction is on the party that asserts the lack of jurisdiction. It is further stated that as no such plea was made by respondent and therefore, no ground was made out to reject the suit at initial stage. It is further submitted that reliefs claimed by appellant cannot be granted by Assessing Officer or Appellate Authority under Sections 126 & 127 of the Electricity Act and hence, the present suit is not barred by Section 145 of the Electricity Act. It is further submitted that the Ld. Trial Court without going into the trial readily accepted the wrong facts and allegations of the defendant and wrongly presumed that the aforesaid acts and allegations of defendant were correct and justified. In view of the above, it is prayed that the appeal be allowed and the impugned order dated 21.12.2022 be set aside.
5. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for respondent has supported the impugned order dated 21.12.2022 and has submitted that in terms of judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of BL Kantroo (supra) and the Ld. Trial Court has rightly appreciated the facts of the case and passed the impugned order supported by facts of the case.
RCA DJ-07/2023 SEWA SINGH VS. BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD. Page 3 of 86. Submissions heard. Record perused. I have carefully perused the material on record.
7. To understand the averments of the appellant, it is necessary to go through the prayers which have been prayed in the suit and same are as follows :
"Order thereby directing to the defendant for erasing the illegal and incorrect bills of the sum of Rs.46,945/- and Rs.2,330/- declaring them null and void.
Order thereby restraining the defendants and their legal representatives, agents, successors from either withdrawing any electric meter already installed in the name of the plaintiff or raising any bill in contrary to low or harassing any kind of act to the plaintiff.
Order thereby directing to the defendant company for re- installing the electric meter no.24327540 which was taken by the official of the defendant.
Any other order for compensating the plaintiff by awarding a sum of Rs.15000/- towards the account of the harassment and mental agony and also order by awarding a sum of Rs.7,500/- towards the account of litigation."
8. It is revealed on a bare reading of the prayer clause that appellant has prayed to declare the bills as null and void and to restrain the defendant from raising further bills and has prayed for re-installation of his electric meter and also for compensation towards harassment and mental agony.
9. Thus, it is clear that appellant has sought similar prayers as were sought in the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of BL Kantroo (supra). Hon'ble High Court of Delhi after detailed analysis of Sections 126 & 127 of the Electricity Act, it was held that :
"28. It is well-settled that the exclusion of jurisdiction of civil court cannot be readily inferred and the normal rule is that civil courts have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil RCA DJ-07/2023 SEWA SINGH VS. BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD. Page 4 of 8 nature except those of which cognizance by them is either expressly or impliedly excluded. The scheme of the Electricity Act is complete in itself and thereby the jurisdiction of the civil court to take cognizance of the cases under the Act, by necessary implication, stood barred. The Act provides for the jurisdiction of the Authoritys and/or appropriate forum and also hierarchy of appeals or revisions and gives finality to the orders passed thereunder. This also necessarily implies that the jurisdiction of the civil court to take cognizance of the suit of civil nature covered under Electricity Act stands excluded. Consumer cannot approach civil court without exhausting alternative remedies provided under Electricity Act.
29. It is true that ordinarily, the Civil Court has jurisdiction to go into and try the disputed questions of civil nature, where the fundamental fairness of procedure has been violated. By necessary implications, the cognizance of the civil court has been excluded. As a consequence, in the present case, the Civil Court shall not be justified in entertaining this suit and giving the declaration without directing the party to avail of the remedy provided under the Act. Therefore, by necessary implications, the appropriate competent authority should hear the parties, consider their objections and pass the reasoned order, either accepting or negativing the claim. Of course, it is not like a judgment of a civil court. Civil court has no jurisdiction by necessary implication to entertain suit for declaration and injunction against specially constituted forum in view of the specific provisions Found in the Electricity Act (1997) 5 SCC 120."
10. Thus, it is clear from the above reading of the judgment that present dispute between the parties is the one which can be looked into by the Assessing Officer/Appellate Authority. All the prayers regarding declaration as well as injunction can be squarely granted by the Assessing Officer/Appellate Authority under Sections 126 & 127 of the Electricity Act. Ld. Counsel for appellant has orally submitted that apart from the prayers sought in the case of RCA DJ-07/2023 SEWA SINGH VS. BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD. Page 5 of 8 BL Kantroo (supra) what distinguishes the present case is that plaintiff has also sought compensation for harassment and mental agony which cannot be granted by the Assessing Officer/Appellate Authority.
11. However, it is clear from the bare reading of the above judgment as well as the Electricity Act that whether inspection report is wrong or not can only be decided by the Appellate Authority. Even if, the appellant/plaintiff wishes to prove his claim for compensation, he would have to prove through proper channel, that is through the appellate authority, that the actions of the defendant were wrong and he was not liable to be acted upon under Sections 126 & 127 of the Electricity Act. This is not the case of plaintiff and hence, even if the prayer for compensation is taken, plaintiff would be barred by Section 145 of the Electricity Act to prove that the inspection report was false and he is entitled to compensation. Once the plaintiff is not entitled to prove that meter was working correctly or wrong bills have been raised by the defendant, he cannot claim compensation on account of harassment. Thus, even if the appellant is eligible for compensation account of harassment and mental agony, the plaintiff would be required to prove that action of the defendant was wrong and he could only do the same in the proceedings under Sections 126 & 127 of the Electricity Act. Admittedly, it is the case of appellant that speaking order was passed by the Assessing Officer, the plaintiff chose not to appeal against the said order and RCA DJ-07/2023 SEWA SINGH VS. BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD. Page 6 of 8 has come before the court in person.
12. Coming to the judgment which has been relied upon by Ld. Counsel for defendant, it is clear from the bare reading of Sau Rajani (supra), that certain dispute arising under Mahrashtra Housing Development Act, 1976. In the peculiar facts of the case and the fact that the prayers made in the suit were reliefs which could not be granted by the Authority under Mahrashtra Housing Development Act, 1976 and as such, it was held that Section 66 does not bar the jurisdiction of civil court as in that case, the prayers made were different from which the jurisdiction of civil court was barred. Thus, the facts in the cited case are completely distinguishable from the present case.
13. However, in the case of Dhulabhai Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1969 SC 78, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the law on bar of jurisdiction of civil courts and it was held :
"The jurisdiction of the civil courts to try suits of civil nature is expansive and the onus to prove the ouster of the jurisdiction is on the party that asserts. The court observed that even in cases where the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred by a statute, the test is to determine if the authority or tribunal constituted under the statute has the power to grant reliefs that the civil courts would normally grants in suits filed before them".
14. In the present case, the reading of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in BL Kantroo (supra). would show that the Electricity Act does give a finality to the order and the Assessing Officer/Appellate Authority has the power to grant relief for which the jurisdiction of RCA DJ-07/2023 SEWA SINGH VS. BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD. Page 7 of 8 civil court is barred. The Ld. Trial Court has given the similar reasoning to the one hereinabove and has rightly placed reliance on the judgment of BL Kantroo (supra). Further, the ground taken by the appellant that the Ld. Trial Court has relied upon the allegations of defendant is not made out as the Ld. Trial Court has only looked into and discussed the averments in the plaint.
15.In view of the above discussion, this court finds no merit in the present appeal or any infirmity in the order of the Ld. Trial Court. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
16.TCR be returned along with copy of the judgment.
17.File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open (RAHUL BHATIA)
Court on 06.02.2024 Additional District Judge01(SE),
Saket Courts, New Delhi.
RCA DJ-07/2023 SEWA SINGH VS. BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD. Page 8 of 8