Sagar Rolling And Forgings vs MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

IN this complaint filed under Section 21(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 complainants claim compensation to the extent of Rs. 60.00 lakhs. We quote the prayer in the complaint as under : ''In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances it is respectfully prayed that the Honble Commission may be graciously pleased to : (a) Direct the respondent to give compensation to the extent of Rs. 60,00,000/ - quantified under different heads, as per Annexure -Q hereto. (b) ,Award interest on the above compensation till the date of payment. (c) Pass such further or other order(s) as it may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.'' The quantification of the claim is as under : ''Statement of Claim Heading Loss (in Rupees) 1. Loss of profit (details given below) (from 1986 -87 to 1993 -94) 51,83,817/ - 2. Loss on account of excess consumption of fuel oil due to interrupted power supply 8,68,062/ - Total : 60,51,879/ - Details of Loss of Profit (a) Installed capacity of the factory is 10 Metric tons (M.T.) per shift (b) Each shift is of 5 hours. (c) Each year the factory operates 300 shifts. (d) Production each year is, therefore 300 x 10 = 3000 M.T. (e) In eight years the production should have been 3000 x 8 = 24000 M.T. (f) According to the report of Shri Mate (C.E.) production was = 7876 M.T. (g) Net loss of business in terms of production = 16124 M.T. (h) According to the report, net loss on production for 8 years = Rs. 40,34,773/ -. (i) Total production during 1986 -94 = Rs. 4,38,56,659/ -. (j) Average expected profit @ 2.62%* of Rs. 4,38,56,659/ - = Rs. 11,49,044/ -. (k) Total loss after adding loss of expec -ted profits (h+j) = Rs. 51,83,817/ -. * The factory had earned a Net Profit of 2.62% in the year 1986.''

IT would be seen that the alleged loss of profit is right from the year 1986 -87 to 1993 -94 most of which will be barred by limitation as the complaint was filed on 13.9.1996. Then evidence will be required for the loss on account of excess consumption of fuel oil due to interrupted supply. All this will require a great deal of evidence apart from interpretation of the terms of the agreement on which the power was agreed to be supplied to the complainants by the opposite party. It was submitted before us that opposite party had already filed two civil suits against the complainants which were still pending and these suits being Nos. 631/1993 and 817/1995. These are stated to be towards arrears of electricity charges. Though the complaint was filed on 13.9.1996 it was taken up for the first time on 19.12.2001 due to huge pendency of cases in the National Commission. On this date we required the complainants to file his evidence by means of affidavit within four weeks from that date. This was not done. On 18.4.2002 we passed the following order : ''If we refer to Page 74 Annexure ''Q where quantification of damages have been given, it will be seen that loss of profit is claimed from 1986 -87 to 1993 -94 and then there is a claim on account of excess consumption of fuel also, perhaps pertains to the same period. This complaint was filed on 13.9.1996. In the circumstances, most of the claim appears to be barred by limitation. Ms. Bahl wants time to seek instructions and if necessary, seek amendment of the complaint. To be listed on 20.11.2002.''

Till date amended complaint has not been filed. We are of the view that such type of cases could be best tried in a Civil Court. Honble Supreme Court in the case of Synco v. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur & Ors., I (2002) CPJ 16 (SC)=(2002) 2 SCC 1, has taken the view which we quote : ''Given the nature of the claim in the complaint and the prayer for damages in the sum of rupees fifteen crores and for an additional sum of rupees sixty lakhs for covering the cost of travelling and other expenses incurred by the appellant, it is obvious that very detailed evidence would have to be led, both to prove the claim and thereafter to prove the damages and expenses. It is, therefore, in any event, not an appropriate case to be heard and disposed of in a summary fashion. The National Commission was right in giving to the appellant liberty to move the Civil Court. This is an appropriate claim for a Civil Court to decide and obviously, was not filed before a Civil Court to start with because, before the Consumer Forum, any figure in damages can be claimed without having to pay Court -fees. This, in that sense, is an abuse of the process of the Consumer Forum.''

WE , therefore, dismiss this complaint. But that will not certainly come in the way of the complainants in approaching the Civil Court or any other Forum for the reliefs claimed. We may also note that Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Engineering Works v. PSG Industrial Institute, II (1995) CPJ 1 (SC)=(1995) 3 SCC 583, said that for exclusion of the time spent in these proceedings provisions of Section 14 of Limitation Act can be invoked. Complaint dismissed.