Amrit Paper vs PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

THE complainant - Amrit Paper, a Division of Amrit Banaspati Co. Ltd., Hoshiarpur claims refund of Rs. 4,72,200/- from the opposite party - Punjab State Electricity Board. On the aforesaid amount interest @ 18% p.a. is also claimed. Another sum of Rs. 5 lacs on account of harassment, mental agony, discomfort and inconvenience caused was claimed. Costs to the extent of Rs. 25,000/- were asked for. THE complainant, a consumer of electricity for their factory premises applied for extension of load upto 5078 KVA in 1990. THE same was sanctioned vide letter dated September 19,1990 (Annexure PI) with certain conditions. THE complainant was to construct 33.66 KVA Sub-station by November, 1990 failing which the facility was to be withdrawn. THE Electricity Board in turn was to instal/draw the power line to the said 33.66 KV Sub-station. This condition was provided as the existing 11 KV line was insufficient to meet the demand. Time for construction of the Sub-station was subsequently extended upto December 31, 1990. THE complainant subsequently constructed the Sub- station and the Board also constructed the line. It was on July 29,1991 that the supply therefrom commenced. THE complainant was however, charged at excessive rate for the bills following as the power was-alleged to have been used beyond 5078 KVA after June 19,1991.THE details of the bills received for the months of July, 1991 to October, 1991 were also given in para 9 of the complaint for Rs. 1,00,500/-, Rs. 1,59,000/-, Rs. 92,400/- and Rs.1,03,800/- respectively. In order to avoid any complications, the aforesaid amounts demanded were paid and representations were made for refund of the same as the complainant was entitled to use electricity upto 5078 KVA. It may be observed that Sub-station was constructed by the complainant at a cost of about Rs. 47 lacs. Since the Electricity Board did not refund the amount charged in excess, the complaint was filed.

THE Electricity Board in their version, took up preliminary objection that Dispute Settlement Committee appointed under the Regulation of the board was seized of the matter and the complaint was not maintainable. On merits, the correspondence between the parties and the facts briefly stated above were admitted. However, it was denied that the complainant became entitled to use contract demand of 5078 KVA. Thus the complainant was entitled to the same only when the Chief Engineer approved the same. Since the consumption had increased 5078 KVA during the disputed period/the Board was entitled to claim penal charges as per bills submitted. Both the parties produced their evidence on affidavits and documents. We have heard Counsel for the parties. Merely because a remedy existed in getting the dispute settled from the Dispute Settlement Committee appointed under the Regulation of the Electricity Board, it cannot be held that the jurisdiction of the Commission under the Consumer Protection Act was barred. The Supreme Court in several cases has laid down that the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is in addition to the remedy otherwise available to die consumers. Particularly with reference to the provisions of Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, it was held that existence of arbitration proceedings consented to by the parties per se is no ground to deny the relief to the consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. Reference may only be made to the latest decision of the Supreme Court in this respect in "M/s. Fair Air Engineers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. N.K. Modi", III (1996) CPJ 1 (SC)=1996 (2) CPC 304. While making reference to the provisions of Section 34 of the Arbitration Act and Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in para 15 of the judgment, it was observed that nevertheless the aforesaid provisions, the Consumer Protection Act provides additional remedy.

The short question involved in the present case is as to whether the Electricity Board rightly claimed the electricity charges through bills for the months of July, 1991 to October, 1991 as per details given in the complaint. Reference be made to Annexure P3 vide which the permission to use electricity upto 5078 KVA stood granted. The terms and conditions referred to above as already stated provide for construction of Sub- station by the complainant and installation of 33 KVA line by the Electricity Board. If in the meantime, the complainant was to increase the load, he was to be charged on the penal basis. However, after completion of Sub-station and provision of the line 33 KVA having been made by the board, the complainant was entitled to use of electricity upto 5078 KVA. The stand of the Electricity Board is that it was only after approval was granted by the Chief Engineer that the complainant could be charged as per normal rates upto 5078 KVA as provided in the approval letter of the Chief Engineer dated 23.11.1990. The contention in the facts of the present case cannot be accepted. The Electricity Board vide letter dated 22.8.1991 informed the complainant that after completion of the Sub-station by the complainant, the Electricity Board had also completed installation of the line 33 KVA and request was made to the Chief Engineer of the Board for granting approval. By delaying the grant of approval by few months, the Electricity Board could not deprive the complainant of the benefit of construction of the Sub-station and installation of 33 KVA line. It is not disputed that during the disputed period, the complainant was served through line 33 KVA. That being the position, the Electricity Board was not to charge at the penal rate from the complainant for the use of electricity up to 5078 KVA. Otherwise, it would amount to unfair trade practice that inspite of fulfilment of terms and conditions of the sanction order, the complainant was still to be charged at the penal rates when he had complied with his part of the terms and conditions and had in fact utilised the energy as permissible upto 5078 KVA.

IT was also suggested during arguments that some decisions have been taken by the Disputes Settlement Committee referred to above. However, the details of the decisions have not been brought to our notice and no comments on merits thereof can be made. Ultimately, this complaint is to be decided on merits on the date the same was filed. For the reasons recorded above, this complaint is allowed with the direction to the Electricity Board to issue fresh bills for the periods mentioned above taking into consideration that the complainant was legally entitled to use the electricity upto 5078 KVA and adjust the excess amount already charged against the future bills following receipt of copy of this order. The Electricity Board would compensate the complainant for the harassment and agony suffered. This would be in the form of interest on the excess amount charged @ 18% p.a. The same would also be adjusted as stated above. A sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards costs of litigation would also be paid/adjusted by the Electricity Board. The complaint is disposed of with the directions as aforesaid. Complaint allowed with costs.