PATEL SALT AND MARINE CHEMICALS vs Gujarat Vidyut Board

THIS appeal arises from order dated 26th February, 2003 rendered by the learned Bhavnagar District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in Consumer Dispute Case No. 45/2002 dismissing the same.

WE have heard the learned representative for the original complainant, now appellant and learned Advocate for the opponent Gujarat Electricity Board (GEB for short). WE have gone through the impugned order. It would appear from the facts alleged by the complainant that the complainant had with regard to its factory L.T.P.-1 light connection with 120 H.P. as per the particulars set out in the complaint. It was paying the electricity bills regularly. However, in April 1998 the opponent GEB issued bill treating the complainant''s connection H.T.P. connection instead of L.T.P. -1 connection. Complainant opposed such bill but having been threatened for disconnection of electricity supply he paid such bill. Thereafter he went on paying and the opponent went on collecting bills for the months May, June, October, November and December, 1998 upto June, 1999 as H.T connection bills. In August, 1999 the opponent GEB realized its mistake and started issuing bill as per the L.T.P.-1 connection held by the complainant. It was, therefore, the grievance of the complainant that recovery of electricity charges as per the H.T connection by the opponent GEB was illegal and yet the same was not refunded. Complainant, therefore, wrote the last letter dated 26th April, 2002 for revising the bills which were paid by the complainant as per H.T.P. connection. On the same day opponent GEB rejected the request for revising the bills. Complainant, therefore, approached the learned Forum for treating the H.T. bills paid by the complainant as L.T.P.-1 bills and directing the opponent GEB to pay difference amount with interest @ 18% p.a. and cost of the complaint.

Opponent GEB resisted the complaint inter alia on the ground that it was barred by limitation, that the bills which were issued to the complainant were in order as the complainant was found using more than 120 H.P., that it was 127 H.P. in May-June, 1998, that it was 148 H.P. in January, 1999 and that the complainant was accordingly charged as H.T.P.-1 tariff. The concerned authority of the opponent, therefore, replied that the billing made for the electricity supplied to the complainant was in order and that the complainant was not entitled to any refund/relief.

UPON consideration of the respective pleadings and material placed on record the learned Forum came to the conclusion that the complaint was not barred by limitation, that the complaint was not maintainable at law as there was no specifying relief made by the complainant by valuing the difference amount and that as the complainant was found using more load than the sanctioned load complainant''s request for consideration/revising of the bill would not be entertained. It has first been submitted that the complaint could not be said to be barred by limitation as the request for reconsideration of the complainant''s prayer for refund of difference amount was rejected/refused on 26.4.2002 and the complaint was filed within one month. It is a settled law that merely by writing communications for reconsideration of the case the period of limitation cannot be extended. In the present case the complainant made excess payment much prior to issuance of the circular letter dated 17th December, 1999, reference to which may soon be made. It was case of the complainant before the learned Forum that he made payment as per H.T.P.-1 tariff although he objected issuance of such bill in spite of the fact that he had L.T.P.-1 connection. Hence the cause of action as per the complainant''s own say was commenced as and when the complainant made payment of the bill which according to him ought not to have been issued to the complainant. There was thus knowledge on the part of the complainant the date of receipt of such bills and that wrong bills were issued to him. Reference in this connection has been made to the circular issued by the opponent GEB on 17th December, 1999. That circular reads as under: "Sub: Representation regarding billing of L.T. Consumers Ref: LTP No. 7758 dated 7.8.1999 from SE (O and M), Bhavnagar. The matter relating to billing of certain L.T. Consumers based on the recording of energy through static meters has been examined. The provisions in this regard are basically clear in the tariff booklet. Accordingly, these LTP-III consumers (connected load 150 HP) establishing a Demand in excess of 90 KW and required to be billed as per HTP-1 tariff. In response of the regular LTP-I consumers (contracted/connected load 125 HP) no provision is made for registering the demand and recovering demand and on excess demand charges on that account. Prima facie, therefore, the registration of demand in the static meter installed at the premises of LTP-I consumers will be of academic nature without attracting imposition of any charges. However such demand can be considered as an indicator about the consumers having connected more horse power than contracted with GEB. Such cases need be checked at site and upon establishment of excess connected load, dealt with as per Board''s rules. As far as applicability of HTP-I tariff is concerned, the same holds valid only in respect of L.T.P.-III consumers. It appears that the field office has already billed certain LTP-I consumers also as per HTP-I, commensurate with the demand registered in the static meter which is not correct as stated above. Therefore, the above guidelines shall be made applicable only for the prospective period without any effect on the billing done in the past. This is issued in concurrence of the Chief Engineer (Dist.) and as consulted with Member (Tech.)"

IT has been submitted from the aforesaid circular that on account of realizing of the error by the Higher Authority of the opponent GEB complainant was entitled to refund of the difference paid by the complainant on account of error committed by the opponent and realized by it as per the aforesaid circular. Even if that was so the complainant should have approached the learned Forum within two years from 17th December, 1999. The complaint was filed on 20.5.2002. Taking any of these dates the complaint was clearly filed beyond the period of limitation. Hence the finding of the learned Forum on the question of limitation cannot be sustained. Learned representative for the complainant, appellant herein has fairly conceded that the complainant has not prayed for specific amount by way of difference from the opponent GEB. Hence the finding of the learned Forum on this point cannot be faulted. Reference has then been made to the aforesaid circular dated 17th December, 1999. It is true that in the circular itself the error committed by the concerned officers of the opponent GEB has been admitted. However, that does not refer to the defaulting consumers who use more load than the sanctioned load. Factually such cases stand on a different footing. In the present case it was alleged against the complainant that more load was used by the complainant than the one that was sanctioned to the complainant. In that view of the matter the complainant could not have got the benefit of such error, even then the opponent GEB treated the complainant as a L.T.P.-1 consumer from the date of the circular, meaning thereby that the complainant was treated as L.T.P.-1 consumer prospectively as per the last paragraph of the circular. Thus, in spite of the fact that the complainant had used more load (unauthorized load) than the load sanctioned in favour of the complainant, the benefit was given to the complainant as to the other consumers who got that benefit respectively. In our considered opinion, the challenge made by the complainant on the basis of the aforesaid circular is impliedly against the last para of the circular. What in substance the complainant would now like to canvass is that the circular should have been applied restrospectively, but that is not permissible under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

VIEWING the matter from any of the aforesaid aspects thereof the complainant would not be entitled to any relief in the complaint.

IN the result, this appeal is dismissed finding that the order of the learned Forum is just and proper. There shall be no order as to cost. Appeal dismissed.