The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed an appeal filed by the electricity board challenging a lower appellate court's decree allowing a consumer's suit contesting an illegal penalty imposed without a hearing.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
vinod kumar 2014.06.09 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
RSA No.2792 of 2014 (O&M)
[ 1 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.2792 of 2014 (O&M) Date of decision:23.05.2014
Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and another
...Appellants
Versus
Krishan Kumar Kamra
...Respondent
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain
Present: Mr. K.S.Malik, Advocate, for the appellants. *****
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J .
The defendants are in appeal against the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court.
The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction to challenge the report bearing no.3211/03 dated 01.12.2007 and memo no.148 dated 14.02.2008 by which a sum of `44,906.22/- has been demanded from the plaintiff on account of penalty. According to the case of the plaintiff, he is the consumer of the defendants in respect of connection no.TD44/2730 installed at his premises in the category of D.S. and the load is 1.5 K.W. On 01.12.2007, some officials of the defendants came to the premises of the plaintiff and checked the electric meter and it was found that load was 1.543 K.W. and no defect was found, which is apparent from the checking report no.3211. However, the team removed the meter and affixed another meter. The removed meter was sent to Hisar Lab and the plaintiff was
RSA No.2792 of 2014 (O&M)
[ 2 ]
vinod kumar 2014.06.09 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
asked to come to Hisar on 22.12.2007. The plaintiff went to the office of the defendants on 22.12.2007, but he was asked to come again. Thereafter, notice bearing no.148 dated 14.02.2008 was sent to him by which `44,906.22/- was demanded as the seal of the meter was found tampered and re-fixed with some adhesive near the terminal block. The checking was not done in the presence of the plaintiff and, thus, it has been challenged on the ground that the assessment is totally illegal.
On the other hand, the case of the defendants is that after removing the meter, it was referred to the M&T Lab, Hisar, for ascertaining the genuineness of the seals. The sanctioned load was 4.7 K.W., whereas the load of the premises was found to be 1.543 K.W. and after checking in the laboratory, the seals of the meter were found to be tampered with. Hence, it is alleged that memo no.148 dated 14.02.2008 was issued along with notice for compounding the offence, but the plaintiff has filed the present suit which is not maintainable.
The plaintiff filed replication controverting the averments made in the written statement and reiterating the stand taken by him in the plaint. From the pleadings of the parties, as many as 5 issues were framed.
The Trial Court rejected the plaint on the ground that the suit was barred under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC as the Civil Court had no jurisdiction. However, the lower Appellate Court has held that the penalty has been imposed without giving any opportunity of hearing and while relying upon a judgment of this Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Vinod Kumar, 1986 PLJ 161 has further held that the Civil Court had the
vinod kumar 2014.06.09 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh [ 3 ]
RSA No.2792 of 2014 (O&M)
jurisdiction. The finding in this regard, recorded by the lower Appellate Court is as under:-
“Now, in the instant case, it would be a futile exercise to discuss the oral evidence led by the parties but the documentary evidence brought on record is sufficient to prove that the demand raised by the defendants/respondents against the appellant-plaintiff is without any justification because he has been condemned unheard and the order has been passed at his back. Therefore, the order of learned lower court regarding returning of the plaint of the plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC is not only illegal but it is perverse. The learned lower court should have given findings on all the issues because the appellant-plaintiff had a very triable a case and he had a grievance because the penalty was claimed from him for the fault which was never pointed out to him on the basis of checking but the fault was found with the meter at his back and in his absence without providing any opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the impugned judgment and decree dated 11.02.2012 passed by learned lower Court are setaside and suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs to the effect that the checking report bearing no.3211/03 dated 1.12.2007 read with memo bearing No.148 dated
[ 4 ]
vinod kumar 2014.06.09 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
RSA No.2792 of 2014 (O&M)
14.02.2008, whereby the Nigam has assessed a sum of Rs.44,906.22 payable by the plaintiff to the Nigam, is wrong, against law and facts and the same are declared illegal and against the law and rules of Electricity Act.”
Learned counsel for the appellants-defendants has also raised the same argument that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction, but at the same time, he did not dispute the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in State of Haryana's case (supra) in which it has been held that if the order is passed without hearing much-less in violation of principle of natural justice, the Civil Court had the jurisdiction.
In view thereof, I do not find any merit in the present appeal as no question of law much-less substantial is involved therein.
Dismissed.
May 23, 2014 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether civil court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit challenging the penalty imposed without an opportunity of hearing.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Haryana v. Vinod KumarRelied on¶24
State of Haryana v. Vinod Kumar, 1986 PLJ 161
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd.
Krishan Kumar Kamra
Rakesh Kumar Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
