N.K. ROHATGI vs GENERAL MANAGER, DESU (MCD)

THIS appeal has been filed by the complainant against the order of the District Forum dated 14.12.1992 by which his complaint was dismissed. Briefly, the facts are that the complainant has a domestic electric connection at his residence. His meter (No. 4010025) was found defective and was replaced by the respondent. On 10.10.1990 by a new meter (No. 4134667). It is alleged that in the bills for the subsequent period the old meter number was being given, in spite of the fact that it was mentioned therein that the meter had been changed.

IT is further pleaded that the complainant had paid on 9.10.1990 excess charges amounting to Rs. 345/- in the bill relating to the month/cycle September ''90 in respect of meter No. 4010025. He is entitled to recover the same with interest. It is next pleaded that the respondent does not mention the rates for domestic connection on the bills, which they were bound, to mention. He has further pleaded that the rent of the meter has been increased from Rs. 2/- to Rs. 6/- p.m. w.e.f. 1-4-90 which could not be done by them unilaterly.

The complaint has been contested by the respondent. It was admitted by them that they had charged excess amount for 168 units, but it is alleged that it was done due to non-feeding of the new number in the computer. It is stated that the needful has already been done and a rebate of Rs. 155.02 has been allowed to the complainant. Regarding the revision of the meter rent they have pleaded that the Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in that regard. Regarding the mentioning of the tariff on the bills it is stated that it is not possible to mention the tariff on them.

THE learned District Forum observed that the grievance of the complainant regarding excess billing had already been redressed and that the matter regarding enhancement of meter rent has already been pending before the National Commission. THE Forum also did not grant the other reliefs as prayed for the complainant, consequently, it dismissed the complaint. THE complainant has come up in appeal before the commission. The appellant has vehemently argued that he is entitled to interest on the amount of Rs. 345/- paid by him in excess, from 10-11-90 the date of payment till 10-11-92 when the amount was adjusted towards another bill. We have duly heard the learned Counsel for the parties. It is not disputed by him that the amount has been adjusted towards the payment of the appellant but it was done after a period of 2 years. In case the amount of Rs. 345/- had remained with the complainant he would have utilised that amount for two years. Thus he has been illegally deprived of this amount by the respondent by raising an excess bill, for a long time. During that period the respondent utilised that amount. Therefore, in our view the complainant is entitled to interest on that amount.

THE question now arises for determination is, what rate of interest should be given to the appellant. It is common knowledge that the rates of interest have gone high in the market. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case we allow the appellant interest (5)15% p.a. THE amount of interest comes to Rs. 103/-. The second contention of the appellant is that the tariff should be mentioned in the bills. It is true that it would be proper if the tariff rates are mentioned on the bills on that the consumer can find out whether the amount of the bill raised by the D.E.S.U. in correct. But, our attention has not been drawn to any rule under which it is incumbent upon the DESU to print the tarrif on the bills. The revised tarrif has already been notified by DESU through the Press for the information of the consumers. Consequently we do not find any merit in the contention and reject the same. The third contention of the appellant is that the DESU could not increase the rent of the meters and therefore he is entitled to the refund of the excess amount charged by DESU. We have duly considered the matter. A similer question arose in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Jagdish Prasad Gupta and it was held by this Commission, that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, as the allegations do not amount to complaint as defined in Consumer Protection Act. Consequently we reject this contention.

FOR the aforesaid reasons we partly accept the appeal and direct the respondent to pay an amount of Rs. 103/- to the complainant, within a period of three months, failing which action under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act shall be taken against them. In view of the partial success of the appeal, we leave the parties to bear their own costs. Appeal partly allowed.