Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board vs GAJADHAR PRASAD KESARWANI

THIS appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against the order dated 22.9.2001 in Complaint No. 255/2000 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (hereinafter called the ''District Forum'' for short), allowing the complaint and quashing the demand of the appellant Board raised by their bill dated 16.11.1999.

UNDISPUTABLY the complainant/respondent had obtained electric connection from the appellant Board for Oil Expeller and Flour Mill. However, the complainant/respondent in fact never installed oil expeller and only used the said service connection for the purpose of Hauler and Flour Mill. The complainant/respondent however, was given bill for 11 months for the period from July, 1995 to July, 1996 at the higher rate of tariff. The complainant/respondent, protested against the said bill, to the appellant Board. On 25.4.1996 Assistant Engineer of appellant Board went to the spot and after physical verification directed correction of the bill. Accordingly, the bills for the months from June, 1996 onwards were sent as per lower tariff rate as has been requested by the complainant/respondent. However, subsequently in January, 2000 a bill for payment of arrears of Rs. 14,042/- was sent to the complainant/respondent for payment on the basis of internal Audit Report. In the complaint the complainant averred that demand of Rs. 14,042/- as above was unjustified. He also alleged that despite protest and letters written by him to the appellant Board, the demand as above was not dropped. It was averred by the complainant/respondent that he was not liable to pay the amount as above, which was demanded on the basis of audit report.

Appellant Board resisted the complaint. They averred that demand from the appellant was based on the audit report and that it was justified as the complainant/respondent had not executed any fresh agreement as per his actual consumption. Therefore, he was liable to pay the said amount.

LEARNED District Forum in the impugned order held that on 27.7.1999 the complainant and the appellant Board had entered into a new agreement to charge the electric charges at lower tariff rate, only for the Hauler and Flour Mill. It was also observed by the learned District Forum that Superintending Engineer, T.N. Gajpal in his affidavit has stated that earlier the bill was being sent from July, 1995 to July, 1996 for electric consumption @ Rs. 1.80p. per unit. However, on the application being made by the complainant/respondent and on physical verification it was found that only Hauler and Flour Mill was being run by the complainant/respondent and accordingly the bill was sent at the lower tariff rate of Rs. 1.40p. per unit. It was further stated by T.N. Gajpal that in the audit report for the period 1996-1999 the above fact came to the notice of the Board and, therefore, Rs. 14,042/- were demanded. It was held by the learned District Forum that since the appellant/complainant was not using oil expeller and since he was being charged at lower tariff rate of Rs. 1.40p. per unit after physical verification by the appellant''s engineer, there was no justification for charging him at the higher tariff rate of Rs. 1.80 per unit. It was, therefore, held by the learned District Forum that the demand of Rs. 14,042/- was not justified and the said demand was accordingly quashed. Learned Counsels for the parties during arguments reiterated their respective stands in the District Forum.

ACCORDING to learned Counsel for appellant, the complainant had entered into an agreement for installation of oil expeller and flour mill and the connection was accordingly given to him by the appellant Board. The bills at the higher tariff rate @ Rs. 1.80p. per unit were also accordingly sent to him. Subsequently the bills at the lower tariff rate @ Rs. 1.40p. per unit, were sent to him on the request of the complainant/respondent, even though there was no fresh agreement between the parties. Since the auditors during internal audit, raised objection in that regard, the difference of Rs. 14,042/- was being demanded by bill dated 26.12.1999 on the basis of the said audit report. It was, therefore, contended that the complainant was liable to pay the amount as above as per the agreement. As against the above, learned Counsel for the complainant/respondent supported the impugned order. It was urged by the learned Counsel for complainant/respondent that complainant never installed oil expeller and had protested against the bill at the higher tariff rate of Rs. 1.80p. per unit, upon which physical verification was carried out by the Assistant Engineer of the appellant Board who found that the complainant''s protest was justified and accordingly directed that the bill at the lower tariff rate of Rs. 1.40 p. per unit be sent to the complainant, and the bills as above were accordingly sent to the complainant who paid the same. Higher tariff rate @ Rs. 1.80p. per unit would not be demanded from the complainant/respondent. Undisputably, the complainant initially asked for and was given electric connection for Flour Mill and Oil Expeller in the year 1989. However, subsequently the complainant submitted an application to the officer-in-charge of the appellant Board at Bhatgaon requesting that though he was being charged at the higher tariff rate @ Rs. 1.80p. per unit by he was only using Hauler which could be charged at the lower tariff rate @ Rs. 1.40p. per unit, as he was not using more than 50 H.P. of electricity. It appears from the copy of the application, available on the record of District Forum, that on 28.4.1996 on physical verification, the contentions of the complainant as above were found to be correct, by the engineer of the appellant Board, and accordingly, he directed that charges be modified as requested by the complainant. Undisputably, thereafter the complainant was being charged at lower tariff rate @ Rs. 1.40p. per unit, as was his request. It is also clear from the record of the District Forum that subsequently an agreement was entered into by the parties on 9.3.2000 whereby the load was shown to be 50 H.P. for Hauler machine only.

IT would, therefore, be clear from above that the complainant had been using the load of 50 HP from the very beginning and was being charged accordingly since April/May,1996. IT appears that by bill dated 26.12.1999 the additional demand of Rs. 14,042/- was raised for the short payment of bills issued earlier. The perusal of said bill dated 26.12.1999 discloses that bill for actual consumption was 588 units in that month, as mentioned in the said bill and the amount payable for the said consumption was Rs. 1,460/-. However, to the said amount an amount of Rs. 14,042/- was also added, presumably on the basis of audit report. The audit report itself has not been produced by the appellant Board. However, it appears that Rs. 14,042/- demanded by the bill were presumably for the arrears relating to consumption of earlier period. However, the said bill does not disclose as to for what period the said demand was being made.

IT may thus be noticed that the appellant Board had been charging the complainant at the lower tariff, after accepting his protest after physical verification on 28.4.1996 by the engineer of the appellant Board. Though, it is ture that no formal fresh agreement was drawn. However, the conduct as above on the part of the appellant Board and its official indicates their consent regarding the modification in the terms of agreement, as per request of complainant. That being so, even if there was no formal agreement, yet in view of implied modification in agreement as above the complainant would not be liable to pay higher tariff rate of Rs. 1.80p. per unit but was liable to pay at the lower tariff rate of Rs. 1.40p. per unit, as his request in that regard was acceded to by the appellant Board and the same was acted upon by it by sending him bills at lower tariff rate. In the circumstances, even in the absence of formal agreement, the terms of agreement as above stood modified and tariff was chargeable on actual load consumption by the complainant/respondent. In the circumstances the demand of the appellant Board at higher tariff rate which was based on audit report was not justified, as has been rightly held by the learned District Forum.

Moreover, as pointed out earlier also, it is not clear as to for what period the bill of Rs. 14,042/- related. It is clear that bill could not have been for a period beyond limitation, as possibly was done by the appellant Board. It may be noticed that in Balkrishna Patidar v. J.E., M.P.E.B. Maxi, I (1999) CPJ 643, the M.P. State Commission has observed that in view of Clause (d) Condition 31 of the general conditions for supply of electricity energy by MPEB, the demand ought to have been raised for a period of 6 months prior to the date of detection of misuse. Even otherwise the demand could not be made for a period which was beyond the period of limitation for raising the demand.

THUS as noticed earlier, it is not clear as to for what period the demand was made and secondly the demand also appears to be not justified, in view of the actual load consumption admittedly being used by the complainant/respondent. Hence, learned District Forum was justified in quashing the demand of Rs. 14,402/- raised by the bill dated 26.12.1999. Therefore, there being no substance in this appeal, it is dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own cost of this appeal. Appeal dismissed.