Shankar Sah vs ELECTRICAL EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

-THIS revision is directed against the order dated 22.5.2003 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bihar, Patna allowing appeal against the order dated 27.11.2002 of a District Forum whereby while quashing electricity bills of Rs. 27,536.18 and Rs. 33,601.75, the respondent/opposite party was directed to raise revised bills excluding delayed payment surcharge, etc.

PETITIONER who has been running hotel under the name of "Annapurna", was consumer of electricity having C.S. connection No. 962 under the respondent/opposite party-Bihar Electricity Board. As stated in the response filed to the revision petition upto September 1994, a sum of Rs. 12,717.91 was due from the petitioner and due to non-payment of that amount, the electric connection was disconnected in September 1994. On payment of Rs. 4,000/- on 16.9.1999, Rs. 5.000/- on 17.9.1999 and Rs. 1,000/- on 1.10.1999, electric line was reconnected on 1.10.1999 after charging Rs. 30/- towards RC and DC charges. Thereafter petitioner paid Rs. 1,000/- on 8.3.2000 and Rs. 1,000/- on 31.3.2000 as against outstanding amount of Rs. 26,159.31 upto March, 2000. It was alleged that upto April, 2000, the outstanding dues swelled to Rs. 24,159.31. PETITIONER paid Rs. 1,000/- on 24.5.2001, Rs. 2,000/- on 27.11.2001, Rs. 1,000/- on 6.12.2001 and Rs. 1,000/- on 22.1.2001 against the dues of Rs. 28,596.31 as on January, 2002. In view of irregular payment, the electricity line had been disconnected on 31.12.2001 and same was reconnected and again disconnected on 23.7.2002 as the outstanding amount increased to Rs. 33,601.75. On complaint being filed, the bill of Rs. 33,601.75 together with previous bill of Rs. 27,536.18 were quashed by the District Forum with direction noticed above.

Relying on the decisions in M/s. Gaya Roller Floor Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. Bihar State Electricity Board and Ors., 1995 (2) PLJR 715, the contention advanced by Mr. Ashutosh Sharma for petitioner was that as the demands raised by the Board was being disputed, no liability on account of.delayed payment surcharge could be fastened on the petitioner and the. State, Commission erred in setting aside the order of District Forum. According to him, only an amount of Rs. 1,049.91 is payable, to the respondent-Board by the petitioner. He handed over the calculation indicating how the said figure of Rs. 1,049.91, has been arrived at. As may be seen from the discussion made in para 9 of the said decision, the Superintending Engineer had found that the bill earlier given to the petitioner was raised on the basis of a defective meter and, therefore, the bill did not reflect the correct demand. In this backdrop, the High Court was of the view that delayed payment surcharge could not be levied for non-payment of the bill by the petitioner.

THIS decision has no applicability to the facts of present case. From the calculation filed as also said response of the respondent-Board it may be seen that petitioner was irregular in making payments of the bills and electricity connection was restored on more than one occasion on making partial payments of the outstanding dues. Petitioner, thus, cannot escape liability for payment of delayed payment surcharge on the outstanding amount as calculated by the respondent-Board. Calculation filed does not take note of the petitioner''s making payment after great delay of years together. There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the order passed by State Commission warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Accordingly, revision is dismissed. No order as to cost. Revision Petition dismissed.