M.P.OXIDE BATTERIES PVT. LTD. vs M.P.ELECTRICITY BOARD, THROUGH: CHIEF ENGINEER, GWALIOR

THE Complainant which is a Company, has filed this complaint praying for the award of Rs. 47,66,772/ - against M.P. Electricity Board and its officers. The case of the Complainant is that it installed a new plant in Industrial Area Malanpur, District Bhind, Madhya Pradesh for production of batteries with the aid of M.P. Financial Corporation. The Complainant applied to the Electricity Board for high tension supply of electricity. The Opposite Parties agreed to supply necessary power. The parties entered into an agreement on 8th September, 1986. One of the terms of the agreement reads as follows: "2(a) Commencement of this agreement shall date either from the actual date on which the consumer has begun to take electrical energy under the agreement, or the day, immediately following the expiry of three months notice of intimation served by the Board''s Divisional Engineer of the area on the Consumer that supply Electrical energy is available, whichever is earlier. (b) Subject to foregoing Sub-clause (a) the consumer shall commence to take electrical energy under the conditions of this agreement within three months from the date of notice of the intimation referred to in Sub-clause (a) foregoing and shall further complete the electrification of his premises within a reasonable time.

OPPOSITE Party No. 3 i.e. Executive Engineer of the Board issued a notice dated 29th June, 1987 to the Complainant intimating him that high tension energy was available and the Complainant should take action within three months of the receipt of the notice otherwise after the expiry of that period minimum charges would become payable. According to the complainant the said notice was illegal, arbitrary and non-est insamuch as permission of the Divisional Electrical Inspector had not been obtained for issuing the notice and in fact no high tension energy was available till the first week of January, 1989. The Opposite Parties started issuing wrong bills for the minimum charges of high tension energy from 1st January,1988 demanding minimum charges of Rs. 20,645/- for the months of October 1987 to December, 1987. In the bills for the months of November 1988 to January 1989 there was a mention of ''none-connected'' (connection on 10th January, 1989). Thus the Opposite Parties themselves admitted that till 10th January, 1989 no connection was given. It is further case of the Complainant that the Electrical Inspector granted temporary permission for new supply of high tension energy on 2nd January, 1989. As the electric connection had not been given till January, 1989 wrong billing on the pretext that notice under Clause 2 of the agreement became effective due to prior issuance of notice of availability of high tension energy could not have been made. The Complainant therefore, prays that the wrong bills of an aggregate amount of Rs. 1,80,704/- be set aside. It was also mentioned in the complaint that the Complainant had filed a suit in a Civil Court at Gwalior for declaration of Clause 2 aforesaid of the agreement to be null and void. The Court directed the Complainant to pay ad valorem Court fee. That order was confirmed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Civil Revision. Due to the default of non-payment of ad valorem Court fee the suit came to be dismissed on 30.8.91. The Complainant also filed writ petition in the High Court but the same was dismissed as withdrawn.

IT is also the case of the Complainant that in spite of the illegal nature of the demand of the Opposite Parties, in order to get high tension energy it deposited 10% of the dues firstly on 9th December, 1988 amounting to Rs. 9,867/- and secondly on 3rd July, 1989 amounting to Rs. 17,064/-. In spite of such deposits by the Complainant its electric connection was disconnected on 20th November, 1989. According to the Complainant, it is entitled to the refund of Rs. 26,931/- deposited by it under the wrong bills with interest thereon. It has also sustained loss due to disconnecton of high tension energy which have been detailed in the Schedue ''A'' attached with the complainant. The Complainant also claimed Rs. 10,00,000/- lakhs for mental torture and harassment and also Rs. 9,00,000/- per month till high tension supply by the Opposite Parties is supplied to the plant of the Complainant.

THE Opposite Parties contested the complaint by filing a counter. Preliminary objection was taken to the effect that the Complainant was challenging the bill dated 1st October, 1987 and onwards and thus the complaint was time barred. The Complainant had earlier filed a Civil Suit for the same relief. On the prayer of the Complainant the Civil Court granted ad interim Injunction vide order dated 12th August, 1989 and vide that order the Court directed the complainant to pay the current bills along with the disputed arrears. The disputed arrears were to be paid in 24 instalments along with every bill. The Complainant did not comply with that order and therefore, the supply of electricity was disconnected on 9th August, 1989 as he was in arrears for Rs. 1,65,192.89. On merits it was pleaded by the Opposite Parties that the noticed dated 29th June, 1987 was rightly issued as per Clause 2(a) of the agreement. No permission of the concerned Electrical Inspector was required to be taken before serving notice. On the other hand it was the Complainant who was under obligation to submit test report of internal wiring from some authorised licenced contractor and permission of Electrical Inspector. The high tension energy was ready arid available for supply on 29thjune, 1987. The Complainant did not obtain the connection in spite of notice and delayed upto 10th January, 1989 and hence the cannot take advantage of his own faults and lapses. The bills were rightly issued. The complainant had approached the office of the Chief Engineer, Gwalior with an application dated 21st November, 1988 with a prayer for allowing him to deposit the amount of arrears in instalments and that prayer was granted and the Complainant was required to deposit the arrears in 12 instalments. The Complainant paid only two instalments and thereafter did not make any further payments and hence the supply was disconnected on 16th March, 1989. The Complainant again approached the Chief Engineer, Gwalior on 16th June, 1989 to pay the outstanding amounts in instalments. The prayer was again allowed after consideration and on getting 10% amount of the arrears i.e. Rs. 17,064/- on 3rd July, 1989 the connection was immediately restored. However, the Complainant did not pay the second instalment and the connection was disconnected on 9th August, 1989 after serving seven days notice on 28th July, 1989. Thereafter the Complainant had filed a civil suit referred to above.

IT is not necessary to go into the merits of the case because we are of the opinion that the complaint is highly belated. The first bill on the basis of minimum charges was received by the Complainant on 1st January, 1988 while the present complaint was filed on 22nd September, 1992 i.e. after more than 4-1/2 years. As noticed earlier, the Complainant had filed civil suit and vide order dated 26th June, 1990 the Court asked him to pay ad valorem Court fee on the amount of Rs. 1,80,704.89. That order was confirmed by the High Court. The said suit was dismissed as the Complainant did not pay the Court fee as ordered by the Court. The Complainant had also filed a Writ Petition in the High Court. According to the Complainant he had withdrawn that Writ Petition. Whatever may be the reason for the withdrawal of the Writ Petition the fact remains that before filing the present complaint the Complainant had tried unsuccessfully to invoke the remedies under general law and thereafter the present complaint was filed which is too much belated as noticed above.

FURTHER it is to be noted that the Complainant had earlier filed a suit in a Civil Court. That Court''s order about payment of Court fee was challenged by the Complainant upto High Court, Madhya Pradesh but it was maintained. The suit was ultimately dismissed for non-payment in the High Court which he subsequently withdrew. A consumer cannot be allowed to harass a party in such a manner. When he had already chosen a forum and was unsuccessful, he cannot be permitted to institute fresh proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act. For the reasons given above we dismiss the present Original Petition with costs which we assess at Rs. 4,000/-.