PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN vs ARIHANT PROCESSORS

PUNJAB State Electricity Board challenges order of District Forum, Amritsar dated May 14, 1998 holding on the complaint filed by M/s. Arihant Processors, a business concern that the demand of Rs. 1,69,228/- by the Electricity Board was illegal and the bill for the same was set aside. The Electricity Board was directed to refund a sum of Rs. 85,000/- with 15% p.a. interest thereon from the date of deposit till payment. A sum of Rs. 1,000/- towards costs was also allowed. The Electricity Board was directed to refund the meter rent for the intervening period to the complainant.

BABU Lal Bansal, was having electricity connection No. MS 42 installed at his premises at Tarn Taran Road, Amritsar. The premises were taken by the present complainant M/s. Arihant Processors who had been paying the bills regularly. For the period April 1, 1994 to June 6, 1995, for consumption of 146590 units of electricity, bill for Rs. 1,69,228/- was issued. This excessive bill was issued on the ground that one phase of the meter was not properly functioning during the aforesaid period. For non-payment of the bill aforesaid, the electricity was disconnected on June 24, 1997. The complainant was constrained to deposit a sum of Rs. 85,000/- to get the electricity restored. The complaint was filed before the Forum claiming refund of Rs. 85,000/- illegally collected and for a direction to Electricity Board not to disconnect the electric connection and not to recover balance amount of the bill aforesaid. Compensation of Rs. 1 lac was claimed on account of illegal disconnection during the period June 24 to July 3, 1997. Costs of litigation were also claimed. The Electricity Board contested the complaint. Narrating the facts, it was stated that on the basis of average consumption of 10442 units, Electricity Bill was issued for the period January, 1994 to March, 1994. Since the audit party raised objection, the revised bill was issued claiming Rs. 1,69,228/- on the ground that one phase was not properly functioning. Further facts were admitted that on account of non-payment of the bill, the electricity was disconnected and subsequently restored on deposit of Rs. 85,000/-. Both the parties produced their evidence on affidavits and documents on the basis of which the impugned order was passed holding that the demand of the Electricity Board was illegal. Arguments were heard. A request was made on behalf of the appellant for submission of written arguments. Same was allowed. Written arguments have been submitted. The same have been perused.

One of the grounds challenging in the impugned order in the written submission is that it is not a case of deficiency in rendering service or negligent act as the claim is for refund of Rs. 85,000/- already deposited by the complainant. Such a dispute cannot be treated as consumer dispute. There is no force in this contention. In order to determine as to whether there is a consumer dispute or not, the entire set of facts has to be taken into consideration and not only one of the prayers made in the complaint. One of the ways to challenge the illegal demand raised in the form of Electricity Bill was to face disconnection for non-payment of the bill and to challenge the bill before the FORA and the other was to deposit the amount as claimed and then to challenge the action. In the present case, as already stated above, for non-payment of the bill for Rs. 1,69,228/-, the electricity was disconnected. The question of refund of Rs. 85,000/- is, therefore, dependent upon the question as to whether disconnection of the electricity was legal or not. If the demand is held to be illegal, ultimately disconnection of the electricity would be deficiency in rendering service. The contention is, therefore, repelled. The other ground taken up in the written submissions is that when alternative remedy before the Disputes Settlement Committee of the Electricity Board was available, resort to the provision of the Consumer Protection Act was not called for and the FORA had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. There is no merit in this contention. Remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is additional remedy and in view of Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, it is not in derogation of any other remedy or any other provisions of the Act or Rules. There is no provision under the Electricity Act that only remedy in the Civil Court would be taken. This Commission has held that even remedy of arbitration as provided under the contract of hiring services will not debar the FORA from entertaining a consumer dispute for adjudication. Thus, this contention is also held to be without any merit. On the same ground, another argument raised in the written submissions, that remedy was available in the Civil Suit which was not availed and hence complaint was not maintainable, cannot be acceptable.

IT is stated in para 3 of the written arguments that grant of interest @ 15% was against the mandate of the Apex Court. This point does not require any consideration as no reference to the decision of State Commission has been made in the written submissions. Even otherwise, this Commission is not aware of any such decision. Section 14(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act provides for grant of compensation on finding deficiency in rendering service and negligent act on the part of the opposite party in this respect. Such compensation has to be on proof of actual loss suffered by the complainant on that account. IT is only when the complainant fails to prove such actual loss or relies upon speculative losses having been suffered, on such account, compensation is granted by way of interest on the money in dispute. That cannot be treated as grant of interest on the money as such, but is compensation. This Commission has been granting 18% interest in such like matters as just compensation. In the present case, the District Forum has allowed 15% interest as compensation which is not at all excessive to call for interference in this appeal. Another point raised in the written submissions is that the present is a case of commission of theft of electricity which did not require any notice, much less notice of 7 days, for effecting disconnection of the electricity. Reference was made to the decision of Supreme Court in AIR 1996 Supreme Court 2258. There is no force in this contention. It has not been elucidated that when there was defect in the meter, the case would be of commission of theft of electricity. Defect in the meter can occur if intentionally tampered with by the consumer himself in order to use energy; for that there has to be evidence to be relied upon by the Electricity Board. By simply observing on audit of accounts that in case of one phase of the meter not being recording readings, the account should be overalled as it will not be a case of commission of theft by the consumer of the electricity. The contention is, therefore, repelled as the present is not a case of commission of theft.

AN argument is raised in the written submissions that the procedure prescribed under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act was not complied with and the impugned order is liable to be set aside. This contention is devoid of merit. The proceedings before the District Forum have been scanned through and we find that sufficient opportunity was allowed to the parties to produce their evidence and the parties did produce the evidence. Written statement was filed on April 20, 1998. For evidence of the complainant, the case was adjourned. Thereafter two dates were fixed. The opposite party also produced affidavit of Sh. M.S. Rataul, Sr. Executive Engineer as well as Santokh Singh, Revenue Accountant. Santokh Singh was cross-examined and so was Abhilash Chand whose affidavit has been produced on behalf of the complainant. On May 6, 1998, Counsel for both the parties closed their evidence while recording their own statements. In this view of the matter, it cannot be held that procedure prescribed under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act was not complied with by the District Forum in completing the proceedings before adjudicating the consumer dispute. No doubt, the audit party had made the report for overalling of account on average basis for 10440 units per month for the disputed period but the question, as to whether legally it has been done without associating the complainant or that the order was otherwise legal, was to be decided after joining the complainant in view of Section 26(2) of the Electricity Act or by the Disputes Settlement Committee, more so, when the complainant had raised the dispute and had already deposited Rs. 85,000/- under constraint of disconnection. It was for the Electricity Board to get the matter decided from Disputes Settlement Committee. As far as demand is considered unitarily such demand could not be raised which was rightly held to be illegal. For the reasons stated above, this appeal fails and is dismissed with costs of Rs. 1,000/-. The Electricity Board would be at liberty to get the matter settled under Section 26(6) of the Electricity Act and subsequently raise the demand, if so advised. Appeal dismissed with costs.