PHOOL CHAND AGARWAL vs BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

THE complainant petitioner in this case set up a rice, flour and oil mill in 1985-86. For running the mill he applied for and obtained an electric connection for a load of 40 H.P. in 1986. He installed two motors of 20 H.P. capacity each for running of the mills. The first bill which he received on 24th March, 1987 for electric consumption was according to him, computed on the basis of minimum guaranteed consumption for 40 H.P. load. The contention of the complainant is that, as he had installed two electric motors of 20 H.P. each, he should have been billed for at the Low Tension Industrial Service Tariff and the minimum base charge has to be worked out on the capacity of one of the two motors viz. 20 H.P. only and not on the basis of the total H.P. of the two motors viz. 40 H.P.

BECAUSE of the complainant''s contention that he had been billed for under the wrong tariff, the bill was not paid by him and his representations on this point remained unheeded leading to disconnection for non-payment of the Bill. The complainant has made further allegations how his complaints to officers of the Board were not disposed of properly and the orders which he obtained in his favour from the Electric Superintending Engineer, Poornia, the Deputy Director, Revenue, in the Directorate of Revenue of the Opposite Party remained unimplemented by the subordinate authorities.

IT is not necessary to go into the facts of this case further for the disposal of this complaint.

IT is evident from the above, in fact, this is quite patent from the petition of the complainant, that the dispute relates to the appropriate tariff at which he was to be billed for power consumption by the State Electricity Board: whether for purposes of tariff the connected load of 40 H.P. required for running the rice, flour and oil mill should take into account the maximum H.P. of the two motors each of 20 H.P. installed in the Mills. The contention of the opposite party Electricity Board is "that the agreement was for supply of power for the rice, flour and oil mills and as per the tariff when power is availed of for more than one purpose, the bills are raised for all the motors taken together and their combined H.P. According to the opposite party Electricity Board the mills of the complainant cannot be run on 20 H.P. motor and in fact, he has to utilise both the motors for running the mills in question. The Board categorically averred that "it is absolutely incorrect to say that he (complainant) is liable to pay only in regard to one motor, especially when the complainant has been running both the motors for more than one purpose". There is no doubt that the dispute relates to question of tariff on which the bills have to be raised for power consumption. Tariff charge is consideration for service viz. supply of electricity by the Electricity Board. It is not within the competence of the consumer forums to go into the question: the appropriate tariff at which the bills have to be prepared for power consumption. It is in the realm of consideration, and not of service and of deficiency therein.

THE eventual disconnection of the power connection arose from the non-payment of the bills by the complainant which have been prepared on the basis of tariff is disputed by the complainant. As such, this complaint is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum and is dismissed accordingly. This is without prejudice to his right to seek redress of his grievance if any, in any other forum, if he is so advised.