Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(d)Public revenues are blocked in generation, transmission and distribution of electricity for the purpose of supply. The Board pays interest on the loans borrowed by the Board. This is in order to perform public service. On those payments made by the Board it gets no interest from the consumers.

(e) The Board needs back its blocked money to carry out public service with reasonable recompense.

(f) The Board is not essentially a commercial organisation to which the consumer has furnished the secu- rity to earn interest thereon. [269 F-H, 270 A-C] 4.1The argument that the Board is monopolistic in character and therefore, the consumers have no other option but to enter contract appears to be misconceived. The consumption security deposit whether or not it carries interest is a condition precedent for the supply of electric energy. The scrutiny by the Court In determining the uncon- stitutionality of a provision not providing for interest must be tested on the touchstone whether in imposing such a condition the Board has acted as a private trader and thereby shed off Its public utility character? In imposing such a condition the Board has not acted as a private trader. The nature of deposit has a rational relationship to the object which is Incorporated a condition of supply. [266 A-D,] Jagdamba Paper Industries (Pvt. ) Ltd. v. Haryana State Electric in Board, [1983] 4 S.C.C. 508, referred to. 4.2Assuming that the contract Is an adhesion contract, still it is not unconscionable. Conditions and the terms of supply providing for non-payment of interest is not so unconscionable as to shock the conscience of the Court. [266-H] Central Inland Water Transport Corporation v. Brojo Nath Ganguly [1986] 3 S.C.C. 156; Bihar State Electricity Board v. Green Rubber Industries, [1990] 1 S.C.C. 731, referred to.

On the question of the constitutionality of the provisions regarding non-payment of interest and whether it is violative of Article 14, it is submitted:

i)Article 14 does not mandate mathematical exactitude or scientific precision;

ii)The mode and period of security should be related to the billing practice prevailing in Rajasthan Electricity Board.

iii)The consumer with open eyes has entered into the agreement and has solemnly undertaken to abide by the condition regarding nonpayment of interest. He cannot resile from that condition. There is nothing inherently objectionable, nor is the condition illegal or void as opposed to public policy. Even assuming, the contract between the consumer and the Board is an adhesion contract it is not necessarily unconscionable. In this connection, reference is invited to Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 40. That passege has been cited with approval in Central Inland Water Transport Corpn. v. Brojo Nath Ganguly. [1986] 3 SCC 156. In such matters, relief is given to the party only if the contract is so unreasonable as to be unconscionable. In this connection reliance is placed on Gillespie Brothers Ltd. v. Roy Bowles Ltd. [1973] 1 A.E.R. 193 at 200 (g), Farmsworth on Contracts, 2nd Edition, 319 & 320 para 4.27. The rate of interest on security deposit cannot be equated with the rate of interest payable on fixed deposit because the nature and character of a security deposit is basically different from fixed deposit. This is clearly brought out by the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975. The said Rules expressly exempt security deposit in definition of Rule 2, clause (v) & (vi), In Jagdamba paper Industries case (supra). the rate of interest was based on a concession by the parties. The Court had no occasion to decide the rate of interest. That part of the judgment proceeds sub silentio.

As to the meaning of interest it could be gathered from the case in Riches v. West minister- Batik Limited. 1947 Appeal Cases 390 at 400. In Union of India v. A.L. Rallia Ram [1964] 3 SCR 164 this Court held that interest is awardable in equity.

A distinction will have to be made between unreasonable and unconscionable. In Administrative Law mere unreasonableness is enough to set aside a contract while unconscionable relates to private law. If interest is not paid security deposit cannot be demanded as this will amount to unconscionable bargain. As to the meaning of unconscionability, Black's Law Dictionary. (Fifth Edition) at page 1367 can be usefully referred to:

It will not allow a party to exempt himself from his liability at common law when it would be quite unconscionable for him to do so. (emphasis supplied,)"

Farms worth on Contracts, 2nd Edn. 319, 320 para 4.27 states:

"4.27 Precursors of Unionscionability. Courts of equity did not share the reluctance of common law courts to police bargains for substantive unfairness. Though mere "inadequacy of consideration" alone was not a ground for with holding equitable relief, a contract that was "inequitable" or "unconscionable" one that was so unfair as to "shock the conscience of the court' would not be enforced in equity. In one such case, a man promised to give a 20 percent interest in all property that he might later acquire in Alaska in return for the Promisee's payment of $1,000 and his cancellation of an $11,225 debt of questionable collectability. When the promiser acquired property worth over $ 750,000, the promises sought specific Performance. The court refused to grant it. Though the fairness of the bargain was to be judged as of the time that the bargain was made, in equity as at common law, here the "inadequacy of consideration" for the promise sought to be enforced was "so gross as to render the contrast unconscionable."