SARDAR SINGH THAKUR vs DIVISIONAL ENGINEER CITY (SOUTH), M.P. ELECTRICITY BOARD

THESE two appeals, one (No. 1497/02) by the complainant-consumer and the other (No. 1593/02) by opposite party, the M.P. State Electricity Board, are directed against the order dated 27.8.2002 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhopal (for short "District Forum") in Case No. 520/00.

THE dispute is regarding a supplementary electricity bill for Rs. 33,771/- issued on 9.8.1996 against the complainant for a period from June, 1993 to June, 1996 on the basis of an inspection report that the power connection given to the complainant for domestic use was being used by him for office/commercial purpose. THE power connection of the complainant was also disconnected. However, after some part payment by the complainant the connection was restored but the balance amount was again added in his bill of June, 1999. THE matter was then referred to the Consumer Dues Settlement Commission of the Board where again the complainant was required to deposit a sum of Rs. 7,000/-. THE Dues Settlement Committee by its order dated 6.6.2000 reduced the demand from Rs. 33,771/- to 30,780/-. THE complainant after depositing the said amount approached the Forum below attributing deficiency in service to the M.P.E.B. and it was contended that the power supply was never used by the complainant or his tenant for commercial purpose and the house where the connection was provided was a residential one and was always used as such. Opposite party, the M.P.E.B. resisted the complaint and justified the demand on the basis of spot inspection. The pleas of bar of limitation and non-maintainability of complaint were also taken.

The Forum below after hearing the parties held that the commercial use of the power supply was not established. It also overruled the objections taken by the opposite party as to the limitation and tenability of the complaint. The bill in question was quashed and it was directed that fresh bills treating the consumption for domestic purpose be issued to the complainant and the amount already deposited by him be adjusted in those bills.

BOTH parties have come up in appeal before us. While, the opposite party i.e., M.P.E.B. has assailed the impugned order in its totality, the complainant only seeks modification in the impugned order to the effect that the amount illegally recovered from him be ordered to be refundable to him with interest. It is further pointed out that the bills for the period from June, 1993 to June, 1996 issued to him were paid regularly by him and as such there was no question of adjustment of any amount towards those bills. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and we are of the considered view that the appeal of the M.P.E.B. must fail and that of the complainant should succeed.

AS regards the bar of limitation, it is seen that cause of action for filing complaint has arisen only when the M.P.E.B. by its letter dated 25.8.2000 communicated the decision of the Dues Settlement Committee to the complainant. The complaint was filed on 21.11.2000 that is much before the expiry of the period of limitation (2 years). This objection of the opposite party was rightly overruled by the Forum below and we see absolutely no reason to take different view of the matter. As to the tenability of the complaint, Mr. Umesh Nigam, learned Counsel for the opposite party strenuously submitted that after decision of the Settlement Committee, the remedy of the complainant was to take recourse to the arbitration clause. He further contended that any suit or complaint by the complainant was barred under the newly enacted Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. We are not impressed by the argument. The point projected by Mr. Umesh Nigam stands concluded by a Supreme Court decision in the case of Fair Air Engineers Pvt. Ltd. and Another v. N.K. Modi, III (1996) CPJ 1 (SC), wherein it has been ruled that the District Forums, State Commissions and National Commission have all the trappings of a Civil Court and Judicial Authority. The proceedings before them are legal proceedings. It is further observed that the Parliament was aware of the provisions of the Arbitration Act and the Contract Act and the consequential remedy available under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure i.e., to avail of right of civil action in a competent Court of civil jurisdiction. Nonetheless, the Act provides the additional remedy. The dispute raised by the complainant was clearly a consumer dispute cognizable by the District Forum below. Coming to the merits of the case, the additional bill was raised on the basis of an inspection report which the opposite party-Board did not care to prove beyond filing a photocopy thereof. No affidavit of a person conducting inspection or any person in whose presence the inspection was carried out, is filed. No opportunity of hearing was given to the complainant before issuing the bill. As against it, the complainant submitted his own detailed affidavit stating that the house in question was only used for residential purpose, that it was on lease during the relevant period and that the tenant has always used it for his residence. The finding recorded by Forum below that misuse (commercial use) of the power supply was not established, it is seen, is based on proper appreciation of evidence calling for no interference in appeal by this Commission.

EVEN otherwise, the demand for payment of additional charges for a period of three years immediately preceding the inspection in question was wholly unjustified being contrary to the rules framed by the opposite party-Board itself. The Rules lay down General Conditions for supply of Electricity Energy by the Board and one such condition at serial No. 31(d) provides: "31. Prejudicial use of supply: (a) ... (b) ... (c) ... (d) If energy supplied for a specific purpose under a particular tariff is used without the Board''s knowledge and/or consent for a different purpose not contemplated in the contract for supply and for which higher tariff is applicable then the electricity consumption bills already rendered for the service shall be revised charging the appropriate higher tariff for the previous six months from that date of detection of misuse unless in the opinion of the Engineer there are convincing reasons for adopting a different period. The imposition of this higher rate will not relieve the consumer from any proceedings and penalties which may be imposed under law."

A bare reading of Clause (d) would show that the bills so raised ought to have been for a period of six months immediately preceding to the date of detection of misuse as there was no convincing reason for adopting a different period. On this count also the demand raised by the Board was liable to be quashed. Coming to the appeal of the complainant, it is seen that all the bills raised for the period in question (June, 1993 to June, 1996) were regularly paid by the complainant. There was thus no question of issuing fresh bills for that period or any adjustment being made in those bills. The opposite party-Board was liable to refund the entire amount illegally recovered by it from the complainant. To this extent, therefore, the impugned order deserves modification.

In the result, the appeal (No. 1593/02) filed by opposite party-M.P.E.B. is dismissed while that of the complainant (No. 1497/02) is allowed and it is directed that the opposite party-Board shall refund the said amount of Rs. 30,780/- to the complainant within two months from the date of communication of the copy of this order. In case of default, this amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of this order until payment. With this modification in the impugned order, both the appeals stand disposed of with cost Rs. 500/- to be paid by the Board to the complainant.

THIS order be retained in Appeal No. 1497/2002 and a copy be placed in the record of Appeal No. 1593/2002. Ordered accordingly.