BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD vs Lal Mohan

THIS appeal has been heard ex parte, preferred against the order dated 17.7.1998 passed by District Forum, Saharsa in Complaint Case No. 11/1995 directing the appellant Bihar State Electricity Board to pay a compensation of Rs. 3,000/- to the complainant and Rs. 2,000/- as cost of the litigation and further directed to waive the Board''s dues amounting to Rs. 46,714/- only.

THE brief fact of the case is that complainant-respondent had taken L.T.I.S. electric connection for running "Surkhi Mills" for commercial purpose by installing 10 H.P. motor and an agreement to this effect was executed between the parties and he was using electric consumption since June, 1984. As per agreement the complainant was bound to avail electric energy for a minimum guarantee period of two years plus one month notice period and required to pay the minimum guarantee charge/fixed charge and during this period if the complainant was not to use the electric consumption he was to serve a notice of one month to the Electricity Board. THE complainant got his electric line disconnected in the month of July, 1985 without giving any notice. However, the complainant was bound to pay minimum charge to the appellant as per terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties referred to above. It is case of the complainant that after the disconnection of his three phase line of the Mill the Electricity Board instituted a false criminal case against him on 22.5.1990 for the alleged offence of committing theft of electric energy which was dismissed on 15.1.1994. Thereafter, the appellant served a bill of Rs. 46,714/- to the complainant in order to harass him. The complainant made several protest against this bill but to no effect and thereafter filed this case.

The appellant (Electricity Board) appeared, filed written statement and contested the case. The main contention of the Electricity Board is that complainant as per Clause 9 of the agreement was bound to avail electric energy for a minimum guarantee period of two years plus one month notice period (in all 25 months) and required to pay the minimum guarantee charge/fixed charge and during this period if the respondent has not availed the energy he would have to serve a notice one month earlier. There is nothing on record to show that the complainant have served any notice or filed application for disconnection of electric line in the month of July, 1985. The criminal case for theft of electric energy was instituted against the complainant as after the disconnection of the electric line, he was using the electric energy after committing theft. However, that case has no bearing with the present complaint case. The complainant illegally used the electric energy since July, 1985 to February, 1989 and when this fact was noticed the appellant served a bill for the electric consumption of this period amounting to Rs. 46,681/-, and thereafter, the line was disconnected in October, 1989. However it was found that complainant has again availed the electric energy by committing theft of electric power, then a fresh bill was served amounting to Rs. 8,865.60 for the period November, 1989 to June, 1990 to the complainant but he did not pay any amount to the appellant. The Vigilance Cell has raided the "Surkhi" Mill of the complainant and found him committing theft of electric energy for which a criminal case was instituted against him.

IT was further contended on behalf of the appellant that the complaint case was not maintainable as admittedly the complainant has taken electric consumption for running a Surkhi Mill which was for a commercial purpose and it was not for his livelihood alone. He, therefore, does not come under the purview of consumer as defined under Clauses 1 and 2 of Section 2 of the Act. The appellant''s lawyer further submitted that the complainant''s line was disconnected because he did not pay even the minimum guarantee charge as per agreement entered between the parties. This is a mandatory provision and in support of this contention the appellant''s lawyer relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Bihar State Electricity Board v. Green Rubber Industries, (1990) 1 SCC 731, in which the Bihar State Electricity Board was the appellant and the respondents were Green Rubber Industries and others. In a detailed judgment the Apex Court held that such agreement entered into between the parties (in the present case in between the complainant and the appellant-Electricity Board) the relationship between the parties would be contractual and the contents of the agreement shall be binding on the parties. The relationship between the Board and the consumer in the present case was contractual, basis of supply is statutory and as such complainant was bound to pay the minimum charge upto the period of 25 months, if he has served a notice for one month for disconnection. The appellant''s lawyer also placed reliance on another case law in the same issue General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Bihar State Electricity Board v. Rajeshwar Singh, (1990) 1 SCC 741, in which also the Bihar State Electricity Board is a party where also the Apex Court confirmed the same view and held that the consumer is liable to pay minimum guarantee charge under the contract till the termination of the contract itself. We have perused the materials available on record, the impugned order and the above two decisions of the Apex Court. We find substance in the contention made on behalf of the appellant the consumer-complainant was under the obligation to pay minimum guarantee charge as per contract till the termination of the contract itself. Therefore, the Electricity Board was within its competency to disconnect the electric line because the complainant failed to pay the minimum guarantee charge as per agreement entered between the parties. Therefore, there was no deficiency on the part of the Electricity Board. It was not liable to pay the compensation for mental agony to the complainant. The finding of the District Forum that complainant was not liable to pay the minimum guarantee charge of Rs. 46,000/- and odd is against the established principle of law and is not sustainable. We also find substance in this contention of the appellant that complainant was using the electric connection for commercial purposes and not for his livelihood alone. As such he was not a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act.

IN the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. However, there shall be no order as to cost. Appeal allowed.