GOVINDBHAI KARAMASHIBHAI vs GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD

THE appellant is the original complainant who had filed a complaint against the energy bill issued by the Gujarat Electricity Board (Board for short) for Rs. 30,983.323 and it was evident that if this amount was not paid the energy would be discontinued. THE complainant has paid this amount under protest because he cannot afford to close down his ice factory in the full season. THE contention of the District Forum that at the time when checking was made load of 25 HP motor was connected and, therefore, according to the Board the total connected load was exceeding 55 HP and the complainant was supposed to pay the charges for the excess connected load.

MR. Rawal, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that his connected load is 55 HP and he can utilise it by using various types of motors so that the energy bill may be as less as possible. It is true that the complainant cannot utilise the motors so as to exceed the total of 55 HP that is the only impediment. But in the instant case it is not even the case of the Board that at the time when the checking was made more than 55 HP motors were actually in execution. MR. Rawal further states that whatever is written by the complainant is written out of fear and under mis-apprehension. He was not able to understand the difference of connected load and load which be can utilise. According to MR. Rawal his client can fix as many motors but he cannot utilise the energy exceeding 55 HP. That is why, according to MR. Rawal he has employed various types of motors to save the energy bill. Mr. Rawal further states that electricity has been considered to be a service and non-supply of electricity or threatening to disconnect the electricity itself is a deficiency. The Board cannot disconnect the service or prefer bill for the energy which he has not consumed or the Horse Power which he has not utilised. His submission is that this being also a service the Consumer Forum has a jurisdiction to hear all these disputes regarding charges for supply of energy whether the Board can charge for 55 HP or for 76.5 HP. There is no dispute that more energy has been supplied and for that they are charging. We are of the opinion that electricity will come in both the heads - good as well as services. If the Board intends to charge more rates for the energy supplied it can be said to be deficiency in services or if the Board intends to cut off the energy for invalid reasons it will be a deficiency of services. In these circumstances it was necessary for the learned Judge to bear the complaint on merits since he had jurisdiction to hear the complaint. The complainant had not preferred a complaint for energy supplied to him showing any defect in the supply. He had filed a complaint for services of the electricity which the Board intends to cut off if the alleged improper amount is not paid. Whatever observations made by the District Forum were only for the purpose of deciding the jurisdiction and the same shall not be considered as observations made on merits. We therefore allow the appeal and remand the case to the District Forum to decide in accordance with law after giving full opportunities to both the parties to adduce their evidences. ORDER The appeal is allowed. The decision of the District Forum is set aside and the case is remanded to the District Forum to decide in accordance with law. The cost will be the cost in the cause. Appeal allowed. _______________