Delhi District Court
M/S Narang Construction & Finance Pvt. ... vs North Delhi Power Ltd on 8 August, 2008
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEVENDER NAIN
CIVIL JUDGE: DELHI
Suit No. 234/08
M/s Narang Construction & Finance Pvt. Ltd.
Through Shri Harinder Singh
S/o Shri Bhupender Singh
Being the Authorised Signatory
At Plot No. 15, Distt. Center,
Manglam Palace, Sector3,
Rohini, Delhi. ... Plaintiff
Versus
North Delhi Power Ltd.
Through Its Chief Executive Officer,
Grid SubStation Building,
Hudsons Lines
Kingsway Camp,
Delhi110009. ... Defendant
ORDER:
Date of Institution: 23.05.2008 Date of Rejection of Plaint: 08.08.2008
1. The present suit is filed by the plaintiff company for 2 declaration with permanent and mandatory injunction.
2. Plaintiff in his plaint stated that he is having a commercial connection bearing K.No. 341099061927 with a sanctioned load of 400 KW with a contract demand of 283 KVA having HT as the supply type.
3. It is further submitted that plaintiff was paying all the bills issued by the defendant but defendant in the month of March, 2008 without any rhyme or reason debited some arrears of Rs. 1,78,069/ without giving any notice and the reason for such debit. It is further submitted that in the very next bill for the month of April, 2008 the defendant reduced the arrears of Rs. 1,78,069/ to Rs. 1,54,195/ and that too without any information, notice, reason and base. It is further submitted by the plaintiff that after asking many times by the plaintiff the defendant gave a document stating to be the J.E. details sheets pertaining to the K.No. 44100003492 having KCG K.No. XI6192 showing the charges pertaining between 06.06.03 to 28.11.03. In his plaint plaintiff 3 alleged that the bare perusal of the J.E. details sheet it is clear that the contention and the intention of the defendant is malafide and without any base and reason. It is further submitted on behalf of plaintiff that at the time of applying fr the new permanent connection the plaintiff was required to fulfill all the commercial formalities and pay the outstanding dues in respect of the previous K.No. 44100003492 which the plaintiff fulfilled. On these grounds and on the basis of the facts mentioned in the plaint, the plaintiff prayed :
a) pass a decree for declaration in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant thereby declaring the impugned bill No. 4410040861927 showing the arrears of Rs. 1,54,195.31/ with a due date 07.05.08 in respect of the connection bearing no. 341099061927 in the name of M/s. Narang Construction Financers Pvt. Ltd. at Plot No. 15, Sector3, Distt. Centre Manglam Place, Rohini, Delhi with the billing address of SD65, Pitampura, Delhi as null and void and not payable by the plaintiff in any manner 4 whatsoever
b) pass a decree for permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant thereby restraining the defendants, its agents, representatives, attorney assignees or any one else on its behalf from disconnecting the supply bearing K.No. 341099061927 and further restrained to take any action in respect to this impugned bill;
c) pass a decree for mandatory injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant to withdraw this impugned bill;
d) cost of the suit may be awarded in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant;
e) Any other order / s, which this Hon'ble Court deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, in the interest of justice.
5
4. In reply to this the defendant moved an application u/o 7 Rule 11 CPC in which it is stated that plaintiff has filed the present suit for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction seeking the relief to pass the decree of declaration and injunction directing the defendant's bill as null and void. It is further submitted that this Court has no jurisdiction since the jurisdiction of the Civil Court has been barred impliedly by the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, notification issued by Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission and by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is further submitted that the appropriate Forum for adjudication of the present dispute being a dispute pertaining to electricity, is Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum constituted and functioning under Section 42 (5) of Electricity Act, 2003 and the notification dated 11.03.04 respectively.
5. Plaintiff in his reply to the application of defendant u/o 7 Rule 11 CPC submitted that this Court has got full jurisdiction to try and entertain the present matter, as no provision under the Indian Electricity 6 Act, 2003 bars or excludes the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts in the present matter as the present matter is not governed u/s 145 of the Indian Electricity Act in any manner whatsoever as the dispute in question is not of any type of assessment which is covered u/s 126 and 127 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003, hence the provisions which the applicant / defendant is raising under the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 does not bar the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court in any manner. It is further submitted that Regulation 42(5) of DERC makes a provision for an alternate remedy for the consumers or aggrieved persons to move to the Consumer Courts or to the CGRF.
6. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has cogently decided in Punjab State Electricity Board Vs. Ashwani Kumar, 1997 (5) SCC 120. The relevant portion of the above judgment is reproduced herein below for perusal and ready reference of this Hon'ble Court:
"It is true that ordinarily the Civil Court has jurisdiction to go into and try the disputed questions of civil nature, where 7 the fundamental fairness of procedure has been violated. The statutory circulars enumerated above do indicate that a fundamental fairness of the procedure has been prescribed in the rules and is being followed. By necessary implications, the cognizance of the civil cause has been excluded. As a consequence, 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 Indian Electricity Act, and the Indian Electricity (Supply) Act and the Instructions issued by the Board in that behalf from time to time as stated above."
7. It is submitted that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in a case titled as Ram Kishan Vs. NDPL, LPA NO. 746 of 2004 has categorically mentioned as under: "In our opinion, all disputes regarding electricity bills 8 should first go before the appropriate Forum provided for in Section 42(5) and thereafter to the Ombudsman under Section 42(6) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and only thereafter, should writ petitions be entertained."
8. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission vide notification dated 11.03.04 has exercised the powers for the constitution of Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and Ombudsman. It has been categorically mentioned in Chapter 1 Rule 8 that " the Forum shall take up any type of grievance concerning with electricity supply to the consumers except the grievances arising under Section 126, 127, 135, 139, 143, 152 and 161 of the Electricity Act, 2003."
9. On these grounds, the defendant moved the present application and further requested that the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed on the 9 grounds mentioned in the said application and it is further submitted that the plaintiff is seeking the relief of declaration in the garb of injunction and on these grounds, the defendant prayed that :
a) Dismiss the suit of the plaintiff in view of the submissions made hereinabove; and / or,
b) Pass any other further order which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances.
10. Counsel for plaintiff during the arguments submitted that Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum has additional power and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not barred and rely on the authority titled as Jharkhand State Electricity Board & Anr. Vs. Anwar Ali reported as II (2008) CPJ 284 (NC) in which it is stated that Civil Court also have jurisdiction to try such matters and jurisdiction of Civil Court is not barred at all and it is further submitted that my case is of escape demand and this Court have jurisdiction to try the present suit before it and further submitted that this Court has additional power under Electricity Act and 10 Consumer Protection Act and also relied on the judgment given in Dhulabhai Vs. State of M.P.
11. But on bare perusal of plaint and considering the submissions made by the parties, it becomes very clear that there is a dispute regarding the present bill and it is further submitted by the counsel for defendant that the case which does not falls u/s 126 or 127 of Electricity Act, then the latest case laws of Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court are applicable and strongly submitted that this is a billing dispute and proper forum for adjudication of the present suit being dispute pertaining to electricity is Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum. It is further submitted that this Court has no jurisdiction since the jurisdiction of the Civil Court has been barred impliedly by the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, notification issued by Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission and by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is further submitted that the appropriate Forum for adjudication of the present dispute being a dispute pertaining to electricity, is Consumer 11 Grievance Redressal Forum constituted and functioning under Section 42 (5) of Electricity Act, 2003 and the notification dated 11.03.04 respectively.
12. I have heard arguments on behalf of both the counsels and have perused the record carefully. From the perusal of the plaint, it is clear that the present suit pertains to a billing dispute and Regulation 8(1) of the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (Guidelines for establishment of forum for redressal of grievances of the consumers and ombudsman) Regulations, 2003, is reproduced herein for the sake of convenience: "The forum shall take up any kind of grievance concerning with electricity supply to the consumers except the grievance arising under Section 126, 127, 135, 139, 143, 152 and 161 of the Act.".
The grievance of the plaintiff in the present case is that the bill bearing no. 0804456744 dated 03.04.03 for Rs. 1,31,750/ has been raised 12 wrongly and arbitrarily by the defendant without any rhyme or reason. It is clear from the plaint that present suit pertains to a billing dispute and falls well within the jurisdiction of the consumer grievance redressal forums.
The judgment relied upon by the plaintiff is not applicable to the facts of the present case as it relates to section 126 and 127 of Electricity Act and the judgment is misplaced by the plaintiff.
The judgment relied upon by the defendant are squarely applicable to the present case. In this regard reliance is also placed on Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission Vs. Reliance Energy ltd. And Others (2007) 8 Supreme Court Cases 381, wherein it is specifically stated considering that a complete machinery has been provided in Ss. 42(5) and 42(6) of the Electricity Act, 2003 for redressal of grievances of individual consumers, held, wherever a forum / ombudsman has been created under the 2003 Act for redressal of grievances of consumers, the consumers can only resort to these bodies for redressal of their grievances. It is stated by the Hon'ble Supreme 13 Court that "now by virtue of sub Section (5) of Section 42 of the Act, all the individual grievances of consumers have to be raised before this forum only". Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Suresh Jindal Vs. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. and Dheeraj Singh Vs. BSES Rajdhani Yamuna Power Ltd. held that the forum and ombudsman have power to grant interim orders. Thus a complete machinery has been provided in Sections 42(5) and 42(6) for redressal of grievances of individual consumers. Hence wherever a forum / ombudsman have been created the consumers can only resort to these bodies for redressal of their grievances. Therefore, not much is required to be discussed on this issue. As the aforesaid two decisions correctly lay down the law when an individual consumer has a grievance he can approach the forum created under subSection (5) of Section 42 of the Act. In notification regarding Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission it is mentioned under heading Grievance Filing subclause 1 that the forum shall take up any kind of grievance concerning with electricity supply to the consumers except the 14 grievances arising u/s 126,127,135,139,143,152 and 161 of the Act.
In view of the judgments cited above, I am of the considered view that this Court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit and the plaint is liable to be rejected. Accordingly, application u/o 7 Rule 11 CPC is allowed. Plaint is hereby rejected. File be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced in Open Court [ DEVENDER NAIN ]
On this 08th day of August, 2008 CIVIL JUDGE:DELHI
15
Suit No. 234/08
08.08.2008
Present: None.
Vide separate order of even date, plaint is rejected. File be consigned to the Record Room.
[ DEVENDER NAIN ] CIVIL JUDGE:DELHI 08.08.2008