JAINENDRA KUMAR vs M.P.Electricity Board

THIS is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the ''Act'') against the order dated 13.7.1994 passed in Case No. 4/1994 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Balaghat (for short the ''District Forum'').

THE appellant is the owner of a Poha Factory for that he was supplied 60 Horse Power (H.P.) electric connection by an agreement dated 25.3.1987 for a period of 5 years ending on 25.3.1992. As per conditions of the agreement, the respondent-opposite party charged electric bills for consumption of electricity. As the electric consumption was 40 H.P. i.e. less than that of 60 H.P., therefore, the appellant-complainant had applied for inspection of connected load vide application dated 17.4.1993 which was also verified by the Assistant Engineer of the Board on 18.4.1993, and found it to be 40 H.P. THE grievance was not redressed. THErefore, he filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act and claimed the refund of Rs. 15,050/- charged by the Board from the complainant for the period 15.3.1992 to the end of June, 1993 on the basis of the connected load of 60 H.P. The opposite party contested the claim on the version that the agreement was for 60 H.P. for a period of 5 years, therefore, during the term of the agreement, even if the consumption of the electricity was 40 H.P. he could not claim any refund and after the expiry of the period of the agreement, on the same terms and conditions the electric supply was continued. The application of the complainant for change of H.P. and reduction of contract demand was without the necessary test report which was given only on 25.6.1993 by the appellant. It is thereafter that the H.P. was agreed to be changed to 40 H.P. and a fresh agreement was entered into. A plea of the appellant being not a "consumer" under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act was also raised as the electricity used was for the commercial purpose.

The District Forum after perusing the documents and hearing the parties held that the complainant does not fall within the definition of "consumer". On merits the complaint was found meritless.

WE have heard Mr. G.C. Jain, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. S.N. Rao, learned Counsel for the respondent and perused the record. So far the question that the complainant is a ''consumer'' there cannot be any doubt about it. The complainant is the consumer of the electricity who hired or availed the electric supply for the consideration. The Board, a corporate body, renders service under Section 2(1)(o) of the Act to its consumers. The National Commission considered the question in case of Manju Singh Chauhan v. M.P. Electricity Board & Anr., I (1992) CPJ 73 (NC) has observed that the question has been considered in number of cases previously and the Commission has come to the firm conclusion that corporate bodies like State Electricity Boards render service under Section 2(1)(o) of the Act and that the sale of electricity is for consideration and supply of electricity on a continuing basis over a period of time against payment therefore is hiring of service under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act. Therefore the dispute can very well be entertained by the District Forum.

SO far as the claim of refund of Rs. 15,050/- is concerned the finding of the District Forum that the demand of the electricity bill was in accordance with the agreement cannot be said to be illegal as it was strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement. The finding that unless the H.P. is reduced by entering into a fresh agreement the Board was entitled to raise the bill for 60 H.P. is also proper in view of the General Conditions for supply of Electrical Energy by the M.P. Electricity Board, which has been framed by the Board in exercise of powers conferred under Section 37 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. To consider question it would be appropriate to refer to Clause Nos. 2(v), (x) and (xii) of Definitions and Clause (b) of Condition Nos. 10 and 21, which we quote : "Definitions: 2(v) "Consumer" means any person who is supplied with electricity by the Board and includes any person whose premises are for the time being connected for the purpose of receiving electricity with the works of the Board and shall include an intending consumer or a consumer who has been disconnected. (x) "Date of Commencement of Supply" means the day immediately following the date of expiry of a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of intimation by an intending consumer of the availability of power or the date of actual availing of supply by such consumer, whichever is earlier. (xii) "Contract demand" means the maximum KW or KVA as the case may be, agreed to be supplied by the Board and contracted by the Consumer and shall be related to the maximum demand of the consumer, 10. Wiring on Consumer''s Premises - (a) -------------------; (b) As required by Rule 45 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956, no electrical installation work (including additions, alterations, repairs and adjustment to existing installations) except such replacement of lamps, fans, fuses, switches and other component parts of the installations, as in no way alter the capacity or character of the installation, shall be carried out upon the premises on behalf of any consumer or owner for the purposes of supply of energy to such consumer or owner, except by an Electrical Contractor licensed by Government in this behalf and under the direct supervision of a person holding a certificate of competency issued by Government. Any person committing breach of Rule 45 shall render himself liable to punishment under Rule 139 of the said Rules. (c) ............... 21. Security and Agreement - (a) --------------. (b) In the event of no formal agreement having been entered into between the Board and the consumer, the latter after once the supply of electricity has commenced shall be bound by the terms and conditions of supply herein set forth and the provisions of the agreement which he would have tendered if called upon so to do. The consumer shall also not refuse to tender an agreement, if so required upon by the Board at any time after the supply is commenced notwithstanding that the same was not entered into before the supply was commenced. In such an event the date of commencement of agreement shall be the date of commencement of supply to the consumer as defined in condition 2(x) hereof. (c) ---------------.-. (d) ----------------. (e) ----------------. (f) -----------------. (g) ----------------. (h) ----------------. From a bare look to the above clauses it would be evident that before reduction is allowed in the H.P. from 60 H.P. to 40 H.P. the test report about the alteration of the capacity of the installation for the purpose of supply of energy to the consumer for an installed capacity of 40 H.P. was necessary. Till then in terms of Clause (b) of condition No. 21 even in the absence of the formal renewal of the agreement, the consumer is liable to pay the electric consumption charges for bills in accordance with the agreement the terms of which had expired. In view of the above appellant cannot make grievance of excess billing. However, in the circumstances, when the appellant made an application for inspection for reduction of contract demand on 17.4.1993 and deposited the necessary charges for the inspection and the Assistant Engineer of the Board had inspected the spot on 18.4.1993 and found that the electric installation''s capacity is of 40 H.P. and not of 60 H.P., the Board, though the formal agreement was executed on 25.6.1993, ought to have considered giving an adjustment between the period of 18.4.1993 and 24.6.1993 of the electric consumption for a 40 H.P. installation. Therefore, to this extent the order of the District Forum deserves to be modified,

IN the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The order of the District Forum shall stand modified to the extent as indicated hereinabove. IN the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs. Appeal partly allowed.