BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD vs SHANKAR REFRACTORIES PVT. LTD

THIS appeal is directed against order dated 6th November, 1992 passed by the District Forum, Hazaribagh in Complaint Case No. 5 of 92 filed by the respondent here who was complainant against the appellant here who was Opposite Party before the District Forum.

THE case of the complainant may be briefly stated. THE complainant filed a case on 24.1.92 before the District Forum alleging that he filed application before the Opposite Party for reducing the sanctioned load of electricity supplied to the factory of the complainant from 92 KVA, which had been initially agreed to between the complainant and the Electricity Boar to 75 KVA. But the same was not reduced though the application was filed on 5.3.88 and the complainant has been paying electricity bill on the basis of sanctioned load of 92 KVA since March, 1988 in accordance with the agreement entered into by the complainant with the Opposite Party. THE complainant never used more than 75 KVA of electricity but the Opposite Party had been sending bills on the basis of sanctioned minimum load of 92 KVA which the complainant had to pay under threat of disconnection. On these grounds the complainant claimed that direction be given to the Opposite Party to bring down the minimum load to 75 KVA as asked for by the complainant and for revision of the Bills with effect from 5th March, 1988 on the basis of 75 KVA load, and also for refund of the excess amount paid by the complainant with 18% per annum interest thereon. On being noticed the Opposite Party appeared and filed written version alleging inter alia that the complainant never filed any application in their office for bringing down the minimum load from 92 KVA to 75 KVA and that the bills were sent correctly in accordance with the agreement and power consumed.

On taking into consideration the allegations made by the complainant in his complaint petition and the averments made by the O.P. in their written version, the District Forum accepted the case of the complainant and passed the impugned order, the operative part of which reads as follows:- XX XX XX

IT is evident from the impugned order that the Electricity Board had been directed by the District Forum to bring down the minimum load factor from 92 KVA to 75 KVA and to revise the bills already paid by the complainant, and for the return of the excess amount paid by the complainant to the Opposite Party within a month. The Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter called the Act) as it stood before its amendment in 1993 did not empower the different redressal agencies under the Act to grant such relief. The reliefs which could be granted by a Consumer Court to a consumer under the Act have been enumerated u/Section 14 of the Act which did not envisage such relief before its amendment in 1993. Teh National Commission while considering Section 14 of the Act as it stood before its amendment in 1993 has observed in the case of A.P. State Electricity Board v. A.P. State Electricity Consumers Association, I (1991) CPJ 148 (NC) has observed that no Consumer Court can direct to do something or to desist from doing something and cannot grant any relief beyond those of Section 14 of the Act. Moreover, the case has been decided by the District Forum only on the basis of the allegations made by the complainant in his complaint petition and the averments made by the O.P. in their counter version. No evidence was produced by the parties in support of their cases. Section 13(2) of the Act clearly lays down that the Consumer Disputes have to be settled on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant and the Opposite Party where the Opposite Party denies or disputes the allegations contained in that application and brought to the notice of the District Forum by the complainant where the O.P. omits or fails to take any action to represent his case within the time given by the Forum. But in the present case the District Forum has accepted the case of the complainant without any evidence produced by the complainant either in the form of an affidavit or examination of witness on oath. The District Forum has erred in accepting the case of the complainant without there being any reliable material to support his case. There has been contravention of the mandatory provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act.

ON these two grounds alone the impugned order is fit to be set aside. Moreover, the District Forum has passed a composite order and directed for payment of 18% per cent interest on the excess amount to be refunded to the complainant, if the Opposite Party fails to refund the same within a month of the date of the impugned order. Thus the District Forum has presumed while disposing of the case has proceeded on the presumption that the order being passed will not be complied and will be disobeyed by the Opposite Party which the District Forum was not justified to presume. For this reason also the impugned order is bad in law. For these reasons the appeal is allowed, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the complaint is hereby dismissed. The complainant however will be at liberty to file application for the deduction of the minimum load in accordance with the agreement entered into by them and the relevant rules and if such application is filed by the complainant we hope that the Opposite Party will dispose it of expeditiously. Appeal allowed.