SADHAN MUKERJEE vs G.M., CESC LTD.

THIS revision petition arises out of the order passed by the State Commission dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner feeling aggrieved by the order of the District Forum.

BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner had an electric connection from the respondent, C.E.S.C. Ltd. For the period December, 1995 to March, 1996 one single consolidated bill was prepared and given to the petitioner, which according to him, debarred him from availing of the ''slab'' benefits. Correspondence was entered into between the parties and the respondent vide its letter dated 8th November, 1996 admitted error on their part, gave certain marginal reliefs and then requested the petitioner to come or send a representation to settle the account. They also expressed their regrets for this inconvenience caused to the petitioner; amount involved was Rs. 791/-. Not being satisfied with this reply, the petitioner moved the District Forum who after hearing both the parties vide its order dated 9.4.1998, directed the petitioner to deposit 50% of the bill amount and directing the respondents not to disconnect the electric connection, and referring the bills for the disputed period i.e. from March, 1996-August, 1996 to the Chief Electricity Inspector (C.E.I.) and directing him to submit report within two months of the order and clearly spelling out that the report shall be binding upon both the parties. The report of the C.E.I. could be submitted on 31.3.2000. From this order it appears that the respondent C.E.S.C. disconnected the connection and reconnected it on paying the bill. C.E.I. looked into the bills upto September, 1998 against a limited reference of period between March-September, 1996, directed by the District Forum. Be that as it may, the C.E.I. after hearing both the parties passed the following order : "M/s. C.E.S.C. Ltd. shall correct the consolidated bill preferred for A/c month September, 1998 amounting to Rs. 3,295.33 p. for the above consumer. The above corrected bill shall exclude the DPE, reconnection charges allowing admissible rebates on all the electric bills contained in the said bill amount. The connected bill shall be prepared within a fortnight from this date on the above line for final settlement under intimation to the office of the undersigned by all concerned."

Not being satisfied with this order the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission who after hearing both the parties dismissed the appeal on the ground that the decision of the C.E.I. was binding on the parties, and if there is any grievance, against the order of C.E.I., then petitioner need to seek remedy before proper Forum. Not being satisfied, the petitioner has filed this revision petition.

The petitioner unfortunately died on 9.12.2001, his Legal Representatives were taken on record. The case was argued by his son. He has only one grouse that both the lower Forums failed to consider his prayer for compensation for which he prayed before the State Commission to award him a compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs on account of harassment and loss of reputation of a respectable person. For this, he relied upon the observations of C.E.I. on the harassment caused and negligence on the part of respondent. On the other hand, it was argued by the learned Counsel for the respondent, that there was some mistake limited to issue of an accumulated bill for four months instead of issuing a monthly bill. They were willing to settle it with the respondent. They have accepted now the decision of the order of the C.E.I. which was binding with parties. The order of the State Commission is as per law, hence need to be sustained.

WE have seen the material on record and heard the arguments. No fault can be found with the order of the District Forum which while referring to the "bill-amount" dispute to C.E.I. also observed that the report of C.E.I. shall be binding upon the parties. Though appeal has filed by the petitioner but no relief was sought against this direction of the district, in that sense, it became final. Even before us what is being sought is compensation for harassment and slurring their reputation. Since the petitioner submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the District Forum making several prayers and before the CEI with regard to the bill amounts - their order become binding except that if he was not satisfied with the reliefs granted by the C.E.I. then under Section 36(2) of the Indian Electricity Act, the appeal could have been filed before the appropriate Government or before an Advisor of Board constituted under the Act. Before the State Commission or before this Commission there is no prayer, against, referring the matter to Electricity Inspector. Hence, the order of the District Forum cannot be interfered with as it is as per law on this subject. If the petitioner is not satisfied with the order of the C.E.I. then his remedy lies elsewhere - as stated earlier. WE see no ground to interfere with the order of the State Commission. For any contravention of order of the District Forum by the respondent the petitioner could approach the District Forum. We see no merits in the revision petition, hence dismissed. We see that while the respondent had admitted deficiency on their part vide its letter dated 8.11.1996 and C.E.I. had also occasion to comment adversely on the respondent and in that direction petitioner has been engaged in litigation, a cost of Rs. 5,000/- is awarded to the petitioner to be paid by the respondent within a period of eight weeks of this order. R.P. dismissed.