PRAG ICE FACTORY vs ASSISTANT ENGINEER RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD And OTHER-/

THE complainant-appellant has sought a direction against the opposite party-respondent for refund of the amount of Rs. 9,065.56 which consist of Rs. 8,442.63 consumption charges plus energy duty Rs. 622.93. THE District Forum, Ajmer dismissed the complaint by its order dated 18.7.1990 passed in Complaint Case No. 196/89. Being dissatisfied with the order of the dismissal of the complaint, the complainant has filed this appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ("the Act" herein). THE facts have been stated in detail in the order appealed against and it is not necessary to recount them here. Suffice it to state that the complainant-appellant has electric connection No. A.J.C./H.T./II. It has been paying the amounts in regard to consumption. With respect to August, 1988 to October, 1988 an addiional amount of Rs. 9,065.56 was mentioned in the bill. THE case of the opposite parties is that matter did not record correct reading inasmuch as it was slow by 7.9%. It was tested. Reports were received and the fact that it was slow by 7.9% was established and, therefore, the readings which were recorded from 27.6.1988 to 7J1.1988 did not represent the correct readings of the consumption of the electricity by the complainant. It therefore, sent the revised bill for the months of August 1988 to October 1988 for Rs. 9,065.56. On receipt of the bill of August 1989 for Rs. 69,879.56, the complainant wrote a letter to the Assistant Engineer Division III R.S.E.B., Ajmer dated 23.8.1989 regarding electric connection AJ.C/H.P./II, A.J.C./H.T.AI-A, A.J.C./H.T./ II-B. Billing month was August 1989. THE bill for consumption for the month of August for A.J.C./ H.T./II was for Rs. 60,814/- and the revised bill from August 1988 to October 1988 was of Rs. 9,065.56. THEre were two amounts of A.J.C./H.T./ II-A, A.J.C./H.T./II-B in respect of Rs. 67.50 and 402.22. THE complainant deposited the entire amount of the three connections including the amount of the revised bill of August 1988 to October 1988 under protest. It was mentioned that the complainant has made representation before the Director Commercial, Operation R.S.E.B. Jaipur. THE amount of Rs. 9,065.56 was deposited under protest subject to final disposal of the representation before the D.C.D., R.S.E.B., Jaipur.

THE first question is whether the revised bill in respect of Rs. 9,065.56 was wrongly sent to the complainant in respect of the period August 1988 to October 1988 on the ground that the meter was slow by 7.9%. THE District Forum has carefully taken note of the case set up by the complainant as well as of the opposite party. It also took into consideration, the affidavit of Shri Gopal Verma submitted on behalf of the opposite party. It may be stated that the complainant has not submitted any affidavit. THEre are on record H.T. Industrial Consumer''s Installation and Meter Checking/Testing report of Meter Laboratory, Ajmer dated 29.4.1989. Joint Inspection Report of the complainant''s factory, H.T. Industrial Consumer''s Installation and Meter Checking/Testing report dated 27.6.1988. All these reports are signed on behalf of the complainant as well as the Assistant Engineer, D & T and Assistant Engineer (Meters). THE District Forum on consideration of the reports mentioned above, opined that there is nothing to doubt the reports as well as the reply filed on behalf of the apposite parties. Meter No. 7069124 which was installed at the relevant time was slow by 7.95% as is borne out from the report and thereafter the electric connection of the complainant was disconnected on 7.11.1988 and it was tested. THE District Forum was of the opinion that the complainant has failed to substantiate his allegation by evidence. In the absence of any material to the contrary on record, no other view can be taken except this that meter No. 7069124 was slow at the relevant time and therefore it did not record the readings correctly of the consumption of the electricity by the complainant. Shri Ram Gopal Verma has given a very detailed affidavit in this connection, and so there was justification for sending the revised bill of August 1988 to October 1988 in the billing month of August 1989. THE complainant has already deposited the amount under protest. No relief was granted by the higher authorities on the complainant''s representation. It may be mentioned in passing that the opposite parties raised an objection that the complainant may refer the dispute to Electrical Inspector in accordance with Condition No. 31 of the General Conditions of Supply etc. framed under the Electricity Act but that is not material for the present purpose as Section 3 of the Act provides for cheap, quick and speedy remedy to the consumers and the provisions of the Act are not in derogation of any other law for the time being in force. An averment has also been made in the version of the case under the heading additional please that the complainant has instituted a suit in the Court of Additional District Judge, No. 2 Ajmer in respect of the amount in question i.e. Rs. 9,065.56 and he submitted an application before Additional District Judge No. 2, Ajmer that the dispute may be got settled by an arbitrator. Except this statement, there is nothing on the record that the proceedings as stated in the version of the case were initiated by the complainant before the Additional District Judge No. 2 Ajmer. Be that as it may the complaint was dismissed by the District Forum holding that there is no substance in it. It chose to rely on the plea taken in the version of the case and the reports submitted by the opposite parties. The matter can be viewed from another angle. The complainant in para 6 of the complaint has prayed that : ** ** **

Section 14(1) of the Act enumerates the reliefs which a Redressal Forums can grant under the Act and besides that no other relief can be granted. The National Commission in R.S.I.D. & I.C. Ltd. v. M/s Premier Paints (First Appeal No. 51 of 1990 decided on 11.10.1990) and Balacheruvu Layout (Vuda) v. Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority (First Appeal No. 17/90 decided on 7.11.1990) has laid down that the Redressal Forums constituted and established under the Act cannot grant relief''s beyond the Act. The relief''s which the complainant has sought with regard to the refund of the amount which he has deposited on receipt of the bill for the month of August 1989 which was issued on 5.8.1989 which included the amount in dispute namely Rs. 9,065.56 cannot be granted under Section 14(1) of the Act. The order of the dismissal of the complaint passed by the District Forum is affirmed.

THERE is no life in this appeal. It consequently fails and it is hereby dismissed. THERE will be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.