RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD vs MARUDHAR EDIBLE OILS PVT. LTD.

BY this appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ("the Act" herein) the opposite parties-appellants question the correctness and legality of the order dated 14-5-91 passed by the District Forum, Jaipur in Complaint Case No. 14/91 by which the District Forum awarded compensation of Rs. 51,073.80 and cost amounting to Rs. 5,000/-. Facts leading to this appeal lie in a very narrow compass. The complainant-respondent is the consumer of electricity of RSEB, Jaipur. Account No. is J.P.D.C.H.T. 17. The opposite parties sent a bill on 5-9-89 for the month of September, 1989 for Rs. 2,27,388.28. The last date mentioned for payment was 21-9-89. As there were talks with the concerned officer, the amount was not deposited in time and there was delay of one day. The complainant deposited the amount on 22-9-89 instead of 21-9-89. Thereafter a bill for the month of October, 89 was sent. It was detected that bill was for excess amount. The only amount which was required to be deposited by the complainant was Rs. 1,27,411.44 and the surcharge on this amount was Rs. 2548.23. In the bill for the month of October, 89 this surcharge was added and the amount was paid. The case of the complainant is that for one day''s delay for the payment of Rs. 1,27,388.28 a sum of Rs. 2548.23 was recovered as surcharge which according to the complainant comes to Rs. 14,992.23 whereas when the complainant had deposited Rs. 99,976.84 in excess which remained in deposit with the opposite parties. If the interest is paid on this amount the rate comes to 29% per day and so the complainant is entitled to claim Rs. 59986.10 from the opposite parties. It was prayed that a sum of Rs. 59,986.10 may be ordered to be paid to the complainant. In support of that affidavit of Shri Dhanpat Singh Kothari, Director, Marudhar Edible Oil, Private Limited, was submitted.

THE opposite parties resisted the complaint stating that no cause of action has accrued in favour of the complainant. Opposite party No. 1, Chief Engineer, submitted that he has wrongly been impleaded as no cause of action had accrued against him and so his name may be deleted. THE dispute is with regard to the bill of September, 1989. THE claim was lodged on 4-10-90. No reason has been given for filing the belated claim and so it is not maintainable. THE bill was given on 5-9-89 and the amount was deposited after delay of one day. A surcharge of Rs. 2548.23 was added in the bill of October, 89. In accordance with the condition printed on the reverse of the bill as soon as the mistake was noticed, the mistake was rectified in the month of October, 89. THE claim of interest on the amount recovered by mistake was denied. THE claim submitted was also disputed. Parties did not lead any evidence. THE District Forum heard the arguments and passed the impugned order. Aggrieved the opposite parties have filed the appeal as aforesaid. Arguments of Mr. S.C. Saxena, XEN and that of Mr. Diwan Chand, Advocate for the respondent were heard. It was vehemently contended by Mr. Saxena on behalf of the appellants that the relief which the complainant was granted by the District Forum could not be granted by it under Section 14(1) of the Act and further that under Section 14(1)(d) of the Act compensation can only be awarded for the loss or injury suffered by the complainant due to the negligence of the opposite party. Our attention was drawn to the averments made in the complaint and it was pressed that nothing has been stated that the complainant had suffered damages on account of the excess charging of the bill and that the loss of interest to the complainant may be presumed but beyond that no further compensation could be awarded without proof, loss or damage. The interest rate of 12% could be awarded on the amount which was deposited in excess with the opposite parties, for it was recovered by mistake. It was submitted that the District Forum has taken an unreasonable view in awarding Rs. 51,073.80. A sum of Rs. 90,973.72 according to the opposite parties remained in excess with the opposite parties and calculated even @ 12% p.a. the amount of interest comes to about Rs. 900/- while the amount awarded is almost 56 times. The complainant did not deposit the amount of the bill by 21 -9-89 for he was asked to do on or before that date. The amount was deposited on 22-9-89. Thus there was delay of one day. Under the General Conditions of Supply and Scale of Misc. Changes relating to the supply of Electricity surcharge could be charged. The surcharge is levied by not reckoning the number of days but 2% surcharge is levied irrespective of the period of delay. According to Mr. Saxena even if the complainant would have paid the dues of the bill after a delay of six months, apart from other consequences such as disconnection, the amount of surcharge could not have been more than 2%. It was stated that the conclusion of the District Forum that for the delay of one day since 2% amount has been charged from the complainant the RSEB should pay the similar amount calculated for 30 days. The facts in this case are not disputed. A sum of Rs. 90,973.72 was recovered in excess from the complainant which had been adjusted in the bill for the month of November, 89 and so at the most what can be said is that amount remained with the appellant Board and the Board made use of the amount for one month and on that amount interest @ 12% comes to Rs. 900/-. In our opinion the District Forum has wrongly awarded a sum of Rs. 51,073.80 to the complainant-respondent. The complainant-respondent will be only entitled to Rs. 1000/- by way of interest as compensation on Rs. 90973.72 @ 12% p.a. The complainant has not claimed any costs of the Complaint. However, the District Forum has awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as costs to the complainant. It is said that the costs are to follow the event. At the most Rs. 1000/- can be awarded to the complainant-respondent as interest by way of compensation. Parties did not lead any evidence before the District Forum. The complaint was presented on 18-1-91. It was disposed of on 14-5-91. Having regard to the trial of the complaint also there was no justification for the award of Rs. 5000/- as costs by the District Forum. The costs awarded are arbitrary, unreasonable and unjust. In a case like this such heavy costs should not have been awarded. The complainant at the most is entitled to Rs. 1000/- as interest and in the circumstances of the case Rs. 100/- as costs of the complaint.

From the forgoing discussion it follows that the order dated 14-5-91 passed by the District Forum, Jaipur in Complaint Case No. 41/91 needs to be modified. The complainant will be entitled to Rs. 1000/- as interest and Rs. 100/- as costs instead of Rs : 51,073.80 and Rs. 5,000/- as costs.

THE appeal is partly allowed and the order dated 14-5-91 is modified and it is ordered that instead of Rs. 51,073.80 the complainant will be entitled to Rs. 1000/- and further for Rs. 5000/- as costs, he will be entitled to Rs. 100/- as costs. Parties are left to bear their own costs of this appeal. Appeal partly allowed.