NIRANJAN M. MEHTA vs Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd

IN this complaint under Sections 2(1) (c), 2(1)(d), 2(1)(g) and (6) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complainant prays for directing the opponent to reconnect the power supply to the factory of the complainant as before not requiring the complainant to submit R.A. Form and also to change the non-functioning apparatus of the main service of system at their own cost; to recommend the disconnected original sanctioned power supply within one week after receiving the report of the complainant in writing of the completion of the repairing of the factory and machinery, also requiring the opponent to pay Rs. 25,000 by way of compensation for mental torture with interest; also requiring the opponent to pay Rs. 1,75,000 for reparation of the factory and machinery and electric wiring also requiring the opponent to pay Rs. 3,00,000 towards loss of business and employment to the employees with interest and cost of the complaint.

FACTS alleged in the complaint shortly stated are that the complainant is a small scale industrial unit having its registered office and factory at Naroda, Ahmedabad; that the complainant is engaged in the business of manufacturing of plastic material and its sales throughout India and is a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986; that the opponent is giving service of supplying electricity in the city of Ahmedabad; that the complainant hired services of opponent in connection with supply of energy; that on account of deficiency in service the complainant had made complaint under the provisions of the Act; the electricity supply service was actually disconnected on 6.4.1987; that the complainant requested the opponent to check up their records to ascertain the energy load which was reduced from 52 horse power to 10 horse power from 20.4.1987; that the complainant had paid Rs. 2,170 on 4.4.1987; that the complainant was required to pay Rs. 2,086 for the bill; that the complainant paid excess amount of Rs. 84; that the complainant had paid every charge of bill on 4.3.1987 which was to be paid on 20.4.1987. Yet, electricity connection was cut off. Under the circumstances, the complainant had to close the establishment. Notice and demand of Rs. 1,134 is misconceived and based on wrong notion; that there was nothing due and payable by the complainant; that the unit of the complainant was never inspected by the opponent. The supply was never restored or replaced; that for no fault of the complainant, opponent discontinued the electric supply and removed the fuse; that no adverse action could have been taken against the complainant by the opponent without service report of the memorandum. This is a case of hiring of service for consideration under Section 2(1)(d)(2) of the Consumer Protection Act; that without giving sufficient notice and reasonable opportunity, the electric connection is disconnected by the opponent; that considerable loss has been caused to the complainant on account of the negligence and deficiency in service in rendering service to the complainant. On these allegations, the complainant prays for the reliefs aforestated. The opponent filed affidavit-in-reply vide Exh. 7 and refuted the claim of the complainant inter alia contending that this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the grievance sought to be made in the complaint does not answer description of the dispute defined under the Consumer Protection Act and, therefore, the complaint is not maintainable. In the alternative it has been averred that the complaint is not filed by the complainant in his personal capacity and, therefore, not tenable. It is denied that the complainant paid Rs. 84 in excess than the bill amount; that the billing summary of the complainant showed that it has always paid the bill either late or short amount than required for the period under review and, therefore, the averments are denied; that the electricity power was disconnected because every time there was default in making the payment or late/short payment was made. Notice of demand of Rs. 1,134 was made through the Advocate of the opponent on 30.5.1995 and Rs. 1,200 were paid on 17.6.1995 as per the averments in para 7 of the complaint; that the premises was found closed from March 1987, therefore it is apprehended that the said industry was not a running unit. It has been clarified in the notice that necessary credit has already been given to the complainant on 17.8.1987 and 16.9.1987 for the bill which was raised on 20.4.1987 and the consumer has not replied the same. The total amount due and outstanding from the complainant was Rs. 2,086+1134=3120 and, therefore, notice of demand was correct; that the compensation demanded by the complainant is based on the assumption of happening of future event and even otherwise it is on higher side. It is denied that the Company has not given notice to the consumer before disconnection as every bill (which were red bills) dated 4.3.1987 which was due on 23.3.1987 was with arrears and notice for disconnection which the consumer has paid on 4.4.1987 and, therefore, the consumer has paid the same after 10 days of the last date of payment and under the circumstances, it was sufficient notice; that the complaint of the complainant is time-barred inasmuch as the dispute in the subject-matter had arisen on 6.4.1987 and the first complaint in this regard before the Commission was filed in the year 1997 i.e. after 10 years of time; that complaint No. 106 of 1997 filed before the Hon''ble Commission was dismissed on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction vide its order dated 17.9.1999 and the complainant was directed to file the same before the Consumer Forum, however, the complainant has again repeated the same mistake in filing Complaint No.1060 of 1999 and the Hon''ble Forum vide its order dated 4.1.2000 directed to file the same before the State Commission. On these averments, the opponent has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

It is submitted by Mr. V.P. Nanavaty, learned Advocate for the complainant that during the year 1986-87 the demand for packing materials had decreased and, therefore, the complainant decided to stop production of finished goods for some time and, therefore, there was no need of more electricity power and he was also contemplating to renovate the machinery for improved production; that vide letter dated 20.8.1987 request was made to the opponent to reduce the complainant''s power demand to 10 HP from the present capacity of 50 HP as per the contract; that the opponent accepted the request by its letter dated 26.3.1987 and suggested that request to reduce the contracted load will be applicable after 20.4.1987 which was received on 28.3.1987 by the complainant; that the opponent disconnected the aforesaid supply on 6.4.1987 without giving any intimation, reason or cause of disconnection of power supply and forced the complainant to close the factory which was the only tool of the complainant to earn his livelihood. The act of the opponent is against natural and social justice; that the complainant tried to know the cause of sudden disconnection of power supply but the officers of opponent were not ready to hear the complaint of disconnection of power; that the cause of action for filing the complaint arose on 27.3.1997 when demand notice was served and first complaint No. 106 of 1997 was filed. That second complaint No. 1060 of 1999 was filed on 8.12.1999 and the Consumer Forum passed order on 4.1.2002 returning the complaint and, thereafter, the present complaint is filed on 30.1.2002. It is stated that the complaint is filed within limitation.

IT is submitted by Mr. P.C. Gandhi learned Advocate for the opponent that in view of the present complaint having been filed before this Commission, the question of pecuniary jurisdiction does not arise; that filing of Complaint No. 106 of 1997 was barred by limitation as the cause of action accrued on 6.4.1987 when the electricity supply was disconnected even according to the complainant which would mean that Complaint No. 106 of 1997 was filed after almost 10 years of the disconnection of electric supply and, therefore, the present complaint also would be barred by limitation. IT is further submitted that the complainant never paid the bill amount on time; either made delayed payment or less amount than the demand. It is suggested from the above that the electric connection granted to the complainant was disconnected on 6.4.1987. According to the complainant, it was unjust and illegal action on the part of the opponent. For the time being, we may not enter into that but taking a broad fact that the electric connection granted to the complainant was disconnected on 6.4.2007 and as contended by the opponent present complaint is barred by limitation. It is pertinent to note that the complainant has not mentioned in the complaint as to when the first complaint challenging disconnection was filed against the opponent. But it is suggested from the record that the first complaint being Complaint No. 106 of 1997 was filed on 17.10.1997 as per the details furnished by the learned Advocate for the complainant and the same was disposed of on 17.9.1999 by the learned Forum and directed to present the complaint before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum on or before 31.3.2000.

AS seen above, as per the complaint itself the electric supply was disconnected on 6.4.1987 and the complaint challenging the disconnection for the first time was filed on 17.10.1997 i.e. after more than 10 years of the disconnection of the power supply. After the order dated 17.9.1999 in Complaint No. 106 of 1997 by this Commission requiring the complainant to file the complaint before the Consumer Forum on or before 31.3.2000 (P.62), the complainant filed Complaint No. 1060 of 1999 in December 1999 and same came to be decided on 4.1.2002. Thereafter, the present complaint has been filed before this Commission on 30.1.2002. Since the first complaint being Complaint No. 106 of 1997 was filed after more than 10 years of the accrual of the cause of action, we do not enter into the details of Complaint No. 1060 of 1999. It is submitted by Mr. V.P. Nanavaty, learned Advocate for the complainant that disconnection is a continuous case and, therefore, the present complaint would be within limitation. It may be seen that as far as the act of disconnection is concerned, the same is completed on 6.4.1987 and the consequences ensued would be non-supply of electric power. So the non-supply of electric power is the consequence whereas the act is disconnection of power supply by the opponent electricity company. In our opinion, unless the disconnection is successfully challenged within the prescribed period of limitation, the consequence would follow. On face of it complaint No. 106 of 97 filed on 17.10.1997 before this Commission challenging the action of disconnection is per se barred by limitation and, therefore, the present complaint would be liable to be dismissed being barred by limitation as provided under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as the first complaint itself namely Complaint No. 106 of 1997 filed before this Commission was barred by limitation. It may also be seen that the payment of the bills served on the complainant is either short/less or delayed and the bill itself contains the consequences that in the event of delayed payment, which would be a notice before disconnection. In above view of the matter, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed having been filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

IN the result, the complaint is dismissed as time-barred. Parties are directed to bear their own costs. Complaint dismissed.