HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD vs MAHA LAXMI ISPAT LTD., GURGAON

HARYANA State Electricity Board has come up in appeal against the order dated 30th April, 1996 passed by the learned District Forum, Gurgaon, whereby complaint of M/s. Maha Laxmi Ispat Ltd., Gurgaon has been allowed and the levy of surcharge imposed by the H.S.E.B. has been set aside.

ACCORDING to the complainants, their firm was running the Iron and Steel Rolling Mill with oil fuelled furnace and was having a sanctioned load of 750 BHP (559.5 KW). Though they have been paying the electricity bills regularly, yet an electricity bill amounting to Rs. 1,29,244/- was received by them which was wholly disproportionate to the actual consumption of electricity in the month of November, 1995. Aggrieved against that the complainant approached the District Forum for setting aside of the electricity bill in dispute, but in their reply, the Electricity Board reiterated their stand about the correctness of the bill. In nut-shell it was pleaded by the H.S.E.B. that the complainant-firm was a large supply consumer and the meter installed at the premises was a trivecta meter, which recorded the energy in KWH and KVAH. So by working out the power factor of the prescribed limit, the demand made by the H.S.E.B. was correct as the penalty levied by the H.S.E.B. worked out as Rs. 75,600/-. The learned District Forum after examining the necessary record and the sales circular issued by the H.S.E.B. came to the conclusion that the surcharge on the amount of electricity consumed. could not exceed Rs. 1,500/-; hence the complaint was allowed and the demand of the Electricity Board imposing heavy surcharge has been set aside. In the appeal filed by the H.S.E.B., learned Counsel for the appellant had vehemently contended that even if the factory of the complainant remained closed for quite some time due to some firing incident having taken place in the factory premises, the H.S.E.B. was certainly entitled in law to impose the surcharge on the consumption in order to maintain a power factor of 0.85 under the sales circular. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and having gone through the record we do not find any merit in the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant. The consumer was liable to pay electricity charges only for the energy consumed and not on the basis of average consumption keeping in view any power factor. Therefore, the consumption of 300 units as taken by the Electricity Board for the month of November 1995 on account of consumption of bulbs, tube lights and fans etc. was wholly erroneous as the factory never worked during the period in dispute. Moreover it has been recorded as a firm finding by the learned District Forum that consumption charges had been calculated on minimum charges when there was no consumption in the factory as it remained closed due to repair work etc. In such circumstances, the question of applying the power factor did not arise. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.