Sandila Metal Wires P Ltd vs Chairman U P State Electricity Board

THIS complaint under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleges gross negligence of the U.P. State Electricity Board and its officers and deficiency in service as also unfair trade practices being adopted by the opposite parties in utter violation of the principles of a Welfare State.

THE complainant had installed and established an industrial unit in Sandila Industrial Area, Hardoi with an induction furnace for production of special alloy steel castings. In order to run the induction furnace, the complainant had applied for the electric connection of 2350 K.V. upon 33 K.V.A. independent feeder. The electricity load was sanctioned by the opposite party No. 1 on 15.2.1991 on the terms and conditions contained in their office order. Thereafter, an estimate report was prepared amounting to Rs. 7,57,019/ - comprising of transmission and metering costs for construction of 33 K.V. line (independent feeder) from 132/133/11 K.V. Industrial Area, S/S Sandila, Hardoi to the premises of the complainant. Based on this estimate; a demand for service connection charges (transmission) of Rs. 5,37,871 / - besides security of Rs. 4,70,000/ - in all Rs. 10,07,871 / - was raised by opposite party No. 1 in its letter dated 20th August, 1991 together with the terms and conditions for providing the electricity connection. This amount was deposited by the complainant on 5.9.1991. In the meanwhile, opposite party No. 1 in its letter dated 4.9.1991 called upon the complainant to arrange to deposit Rs. 10.61 lakhs in addition to the amount against the T & C offered in said letter dated 20.8.1991 as this additional amount is required to be deposited for construction of 33 K.V. Bay at 132 K.V. S/S Sandila (Hardoi). The complainant protested against this demand and immediately wrote letter dated 6.9.1991. The third opposite party examined once again and found that Rs. 1,61,012/ - has already been charged from the complainant in the estimate prepared earlier for 33 K.V. M.O.C.B. alongwith cartage, erection and other charges. The complainant was called upon in the letter dated 6.9.1991 to deposit the rest of the amount for 33 K.V. Bay charges amounting to Rs. 8,99,588/ -. The complainant felt that his production activity would suffer if the electricity is not supplied and thus deposited on 11.9.1991 the further demand of Rs. 8,99,588/ - under protest. The complainant entered into an agreement for supply of energy on 11.9.1991 and the electric connection was energised on 3.12.1991. The complainant then filed the present complaint alleging that due to the act and conduct of the opposite parties, the complainant has suffered great irreparable loss and injury as the complainant was forced to deposit a huge amount of Rs. 8,99,588/ - under the threat of the opposite parties that unless the said amount was deposited no electric connection would be provided and thus the complainant was compelled to borrow huge amount from the other sources as a result of which it is under the financial constraints and hardship and still unable to recover from liability. The pivotal issue in this case is whether the opposite parties are legally authorised to charge from the complainant the cost of installation of "Bay" which is known as Bay charges. Bay is nothing but a part of installation of the independent feeder line.

THE opposite parties have placed on record a copy of the Circular of the Electricity Board dated 6.7.1978 to the effect that the cost of the independent feeder to be erected shall be charged from the consumer in advance. The complainant has himself annexed as Annexure - 7 to the complaint a letter dated 19th June, 1991 issued by the third opposite party. It records that Rs. 10.61 lacs based on price of 1.1.1991 is required for the construction of 1 No. 33 KV bay and this amount may be got included in the estimate given to the complainant. This amount was not included in the estimate in the letter dated 20th August, 1991 but was sent in subsequent letter dated 5th of September, 1991. The whole dispute therefore turns round on the question whether the opposite parties are entitled to recover the cost of installation of Bay which is known as bay charges.

SECTION 26 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 Clause VI of Schedule of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 is attracted. Under Clause VI, Sub -clause 3 of the Schedule to the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, it is specifically provided that when any dispute arises as to the cost of any service line, the same shall be referred to an Electricity Inspector appointed by the State Government and the same shall be decided by him. The relevant sub -clause is quoted herebelow: "3. Where any difference or dispute arises as to the amount of energy to be taken or guaranteed as aforesaid, or as to the cost of any service -line or as to the sufficiency of the security offered by any owner or occupier (or as to the position of the meter board) or as to the improper use of energy or as to any alleged defect in any wires, fittings, works or apparatus, or as to the amount of the expenses incurred under the third proviso to Sub -clause (1), the matter shall be referred to an Electrical Inspector and decided by him." The dispute between the parties, therefore, requires interpretation of Electricity Laws as well as the order passed by the Board in exercise of the power conferred under the Electricity Laws as also jurisdiction conferred on an Electricity Inspector appointed by the State '' Government to decide this question. These questions cannot be fairly and effectively decided in the summary proceedings before this Commission.

WE , therefore, dismiss this complaint on this short ground without expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversy and leave the complainant to pursue its remedy either before the Electrical Inspector appointed by State Government or any appropriate Forum. The parties shall, however, bear their own costs. Complaint dismissed.