ELECTRICITY DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF GOA vs NUNES ENTERPRISES

THIS is an appeal against the order dated 24th December, 1991 passed by the Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panaji in Complaint No. 11 of 1991. Vide the impugned order, the State Commission awarded Rs. 50,000/- as compensation to the present respondent, M/s. Nunes Enterprises (who was complainant in the complaint) for the business loss which they had suffered during the period of disconnection of electricity to their ice factory. However, as regards the disputed bill for Rs. 5,22,637/- as electricity charges, the State Commission declined to decide the correctness or otherwise of the said bill and remarked that it was open to both the parties to approach the appropriate Court to challenge its correctness, if so advised. Feeling aggrieved against that order the Electricity Department, Government of Goa (who was Opposite Party in the complaint) has come before this Commission in appeal.

THE brief facts leading to this appeal are that the complainant is running an ice factory at Goa and had obtained an electric connection for the same. Accord ing to the allegation in the complaint the staff of the Electricity Department had checked the electric meter on 29th June, 1990 but on that date they could not remove the meter for want of instruments. On 5th July, 1990 the staff of the Department again arrived at the complainant''s factory premises and changed the full metering system alleging that the electric meter had been tempered with. THE complainant was served with a bill for Rs. 5,22,637/- for the consumption of excess electricity from the date of installation of the meter in the year 1985. When the bill was not paid, supply of electricity to the complainant''s factory was disconnected on 4th September, 1990. THE grievance of the complainant was that there was deficiency in the service rendered by the Opposite Party inasmuch as they were over-charged for the electricity which they did not consumer. THEy claimed Rs. 90,000/- with interest for the alleged loss caused to them on account of disconnection of electricity to the factory. The Opposite Party contested the complaint on many grounds some of which were preliminary ones. On merits it was stated that the complainant had illegally interfered with the metering system.

While discussing the arguments advanced before them, the State Commission remarked that since 1985 the meter had been examined by the staff of the Opposite Party seven times but no tampering of the meter was found and it was surprising that how it was noticed for the first time on 5.7.1990. The State Commission came to the conclusion that there was deficiency in the service of the Opposite Party in disconnecting the electricity connection of the complainant for non-payment of the alleged past arrears of Rs. 5,22,637/- without getting the disputed meter examined from the electrical Inspector. The State Commission also held that since the complainant disputed the correctness of the bill in question, the consumer dispute arising in the case could not be decided within their limited summary powers and there were other many disputed questions of fact and, therefore, they were unable to adjudicate upon the correctness or otherwise of the disputed bill of Rs. 5,22,637/- in the absence of convincing evidence. It was also remarked by the State Commission that huge amount of bill raised on the assumption of defective meter since its inception could not be made the basis of disconnection.

AFTER hearing the parties, we are of the opinion that in the present case the State Commission has given inconsistent findings. There is no dispute between the parties upon the points that vide letter dated 16th July, 1990 the complainant was asked to pay Rs. 5,22,637/- within 7 days from the date of issue of the letter failing which the electric connection was liable to be disconnected. Thus, it is not the complainant''s case that the electric connection was disconnected without giving sufficient notice and reasonable opportunity to them to deposit the alleged arrears. As noticed earlier the electric connection was disconnected on 4th September, 1990. As noticed earlier the State Commission has not given any finding about the correctness of the electricity bill amounting to Rs. 5,22,637/- and has given liberty to both the parties to approach the appropriate Court to challenge the correctness or otherwise of the said bill. Therefore, unless there is a finding to the effect that the bill for Rs. 5,22,637/- had been incorrectly sent by the Electricity Department to the complainant, we fail to understand how the said department was not entitled to disconnect the electric connection of the premises of the complainant for default of payment of the bill. There can be a defect or imperfection in the rendering of service only if it is established that the electricity bill for the amount in question was wrongly sent by the Opposite Party. At present there is nothing on file to show whether the said demand of the Electricity Department was right or wrong. Therefore, without further examination of the question, it cannot be said there was any deficiency in the rendering of service by the Opposite Party. Consequently, the complainant was not entitled to any compensation till that question was settled.

BEFORE closing this order we may mention here that vide interim order dated 27th June, 1991 the State Commission had directed the Opposite Party i.e., Electricity Department to restore the electricity to the complainant''s factory, we are constrained to remark that such a direction could not have been given. The reliefs to which a consumer is entitled have been specified in Section 14(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In case there is deficiency or imperfection in the rendering of service, under Clauses (c) and (d) of the said Section, only charges can be ordered to be refunded or compensation can be awarded, to a consumer. Hence we accept the present appeal and set aside the impugned it was the State Commission about the award of compensation to the complainant. In the circumstances of this case, we do not make any order as to costs. Appeal accepted.