Judgment:
Bilal Nazki, J.
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Nobody appears for the respondents.
2. This petition has come up after 18 years for final hearing and we see no wisdom in filing this Writ Petition, particularly by a Public Undertaking. The Writ Petition, if allowed, would entitle the petitioner an amount of Rs. 11,000/-and odd and we are sure that this public Undertaking must have spent much more on this frivolous litigation. The respondent No. 1, who is a consumer, had a service line which got disconnected and destroyed because of the construction of a flyover without her consent. Since the service line got damaged by the Railways, she wanted an alternate service line and the petitioner asked her to pay for the service line. She approached the Consumer Forum which dismissed her case and she filed an appeal before the State Commission which reversed the finding of the District Forum and allowed the appeal. The petitioner did not avail of the remedy of a revision before the National Commission and did not give any reasons in the Writ Petition as to why they approached this Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction. This Court also directed the respondent No. 1 to deposit a sum of Rs. 12,000/- which is under deposit.
3. The whole controversy revolves around interpretation of Clause (i) of Sub-rule (b) of Rule 3 of the Conditions and Miscellaneous Charges for the Supply of Electrical Energy Rules. Rule 3(b)(i) lays down as under:
(i) The Undertaking shall lay free of charge 30.48 metres of service line from its nearest distributing main outside the limits of the property in respect of which the requisition is made. Any length in excess of 30.48 metres as defined above and the whole of the service line within the limits of the property in respect of which the requisition is made, shall be paid by the requisitionist.
4. The State Commission was of the view that in view of the rules, it was the duty of the petitioner to provide 30.48 metres of service line free of cost and if it exceeds that limit, the cost of the exceeding line should be borne by the respondent No. 1. This interpretation is not acceptable to the petitioner. Therefore, they filed this petition in view of Note contained in Rule 3(b)(i). In the first place, it may be pointed out that it is settled law that notes to regulations are used only for the purpose of interpretation of the main regulations, but even after going through the notes, we do not find that the petitioner has any case. In this connection, note No. (2) to Rule 3(b) reads thus:
(2) The consumer will not be called upon to replace or renew or maintain these service lines at his own costs, as might be subsequently required due to normal wear and tear of the service lines or due to any other cause beyond his control. Replacements necessitated on account of increased load demanded subsequently or any wilful act or default on the part of the consumer will however, be carried out by the Undertaking at the cost of the consumer.
Note (2) makes it clear that the maintenance of the service line is the job of the supplier and, therefore, if any damage is caused to a service line by a third-party, the consumer cannot be held responsible for that. It was pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not informed by the respondent No. 1 that the service line was being damaged by the Railways. It was not the job of the respondent No. 1. In view of note No. (2), it was the job of the petitioners themselves who were responsible for maintenance of this service line. Therefore, if any damage was caused to the service line, the responsibility would lie on the supplier and not the consumer who was primarily responsible for its maintenance. The consumer would be liable to pay the cost had the damage been attributable to her. However, it is an admitted position that it was not attributable to her. We do not propose to refer to note Nos. (3), (4) and (6) on which reliance is placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The consumer has been put to lot of troubles for almost two decades and she made a deposit of Rs. 12,000/-in this Court 18 years before, although the order of the State Commission was in her favour. Therefore, we direct the petitioner to pay costs of Rs. 5,000/- to the respondent No. 1. The amount deposited by her shall be withdrawn by her.
5. The rule shall stand discharged.