MANIBHAI SHANKERDAS PATEL vs GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD

THE. complainant took on lease shed No. 54 in GIDC estate at Kalol from one Naranbhai Prahladbhai Patel at a monthly rent of Rs. 851/-. Naranbhai had taken electric connection for industrial use from Gujarat Electricity Board (Board for short) and he was thus consumer of the Board. THE complainant, after he took the shed on lease, had to bear charges of electric consumption. It appears that initially the electric connection was of 10 H.P. THE complainant, after getting additional load of 35 H.P. from the Board installed 24 powerlooms. According to the complainant he was able to operate all the 24 powerlooms for his business up to 1988. However, his unit became sick in July 1988 on account of slackness in the market. On December 6,1988 the officers of the Board came to the aforesaid premises of the complainant to check the meter and electric connection. Report and Panchnama were prepared by the checking squad. According to the complainant, seals of the meter were found to be in order. However, the checking squad considered it necessary to send the meter for laboratory test. It is stated that the complainant was informed that the laboratory did not find the seals of the meter to be genuine. It is submitted that the complainant had not tampered with the seals and he was hardly using any electricity and most of the powerlooms had remained idle. THE Board, however, gave supplementary bill for Rs. 116,338.64 with covering letter dated 18.7.89 which is annexed to the complaint. THE complainant made representation against the supplementary bill to the Executive Engineer. THEreafter, the complainant received revised bill dated 6.10.89 for Rs. 84,352/-alongwith covering letter dated 6.10.89 which is at Annexure-D to the complaint. THE complainant had no alternative but to pay 30% of the bill to approach the Appellate-Committee of the Board to challenge the validity of the bill.

THE Appellate-Committee by its decision held to the effect that the complainant should pay 50% of the supplementary bill. Since the complainant was not prepared to pay said amount as suggested by the Appellate-Committee, it approached the Head Office of the Board. However, in the meantime, the electric supply which was reconnected on 18.8.90 was disconnected on 28.11.91. In the background of the above facts it is contended that there was deficiency of service on the part of the Board and, therefore, the complainant is entitled to pray for reliefs as stated in para 21 of the complaint. Among other reliefs the complainant has prayed for reconnection of the electric supply and compensation of Rs. 1,88,580.78. This complaint is resisted by the Board by its written statement Exh. 7. It is contended that the complainant is not a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act (Act for short). It is further contended that the electric connection stood in the name of Naranbhai Prahladbhai Patel and therefore also the complainant could not be considered to be consumer. It is further submitted that the disputed bill was challenged by complainant before the Appellate-Committee and the decision of the said Committee is final and it could not be challenged by way of the present complaint.

According to the Board, the complainant had tampered with the meter and committed theft of electricity. It was, therefore, that supplementary bill was given to him as per the formula prescribed in the conditions of supply. It is further contended that the complainant had accepted the decision of the Appellate-Committee and agreed to pay the amount as decided by the Committee by instalments. The complainant, however, failed to pay instalments and, therefore, his electric supply was disconnected w.e.f. October 25, 1991. Notice was given to the complainant and permanent disconnection was made w.e.f. December 28,1991.

IT is submitted on behalf of the Board that after adjusting the amount of deposit made by the complainant Rs. 37,331/- remained due and payable by him and, therefore, the Board had filed suit for being Civil Suit No. 165 of 1993 in the Court of Civil Judge, S.D. Mehsana for recovery of the said amount. IT is therefore submitted that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the Board and the complainant was not entitled to claim any compensation or any other relief as prayed for in the complaint. It appears from the evidence and material on record that the checking squad of the Board had checked the meter and electric connection in the factory or shed which the complainant had taken on lease from Naranbhai P. Patel on December 6, 1988. The officers of the checking squad suspected tampering with the meter and, therefore, the meter was removed for laboratory test. In the laboratory test, it appeared that the seals were tampered with. Therefore, according to the Board the complainant had committed theft of electricity. It was under these circumstances supplementary bill as stated in the complaint was given to the complainant. It is also not disputed that the complainant preferred appeal to the Appellate-Committee. The Appellate-Committee revised the disputed bill and reduced the amount of the bill to Rs. 42,176/-. The decision of the Appellate-Committee is produced along with the written statement of the Board. It appears that initially the complainant had not agreed to accept the decision of the Appellate-Committee but later on he agreed to accept the decision and pay the balance of the amount of Rs. 16,870/- monthly instalment of Rs. 3,000/- commencing from August 1990.

CONDITION No. 34 of supply of electrical energy among other things provides that the decision of the Appellate-Committee or Authority in appeal shall be final and binding upon the consumer. It is, therefore, not open to the complainant to challenge the disputed supplementary bill. But apart from that it is clear from he decision of the Appellate-Committee that the complainant had given up his contest and agreed to pay Rs. 42,176/- towards supplementary bill. The balance of the amount of Rs. 16,870/- which remained payable was to be paid by monthly instalment of Rs. 3,000/- from August 1990 as agreed by the complainant. In view of this agreement also, it is not now open to the complainant to challenge the supplementary bill or the decision of the Appellate Committee. If the complainant failed to pay the instalment as agreed to by him, the Board was within its rights in disconnecting the electric supply. The disconnection of electric supply, therefore, could not be said to be illegal. The complainant is also liable to pay the balance of the amount of the disputed bill, for the recovery of which, as stated above, the Board has filed suit. Under the circumstances, the complainant is not entitled to claim any relief as prayed for in the complaint and his complaint deserves to be dismissed. Since the complainant does not succeed on merits, we do not consider it necessary to decide whether or not he is a consumer of the Board. In the result, this complaint fails and is dismissed. The complainant shall pay to the opponent cost of Rs. 1,000/- within one month from the date of the order. Complaint dismissed with costs.