U.P.S.E.B. THROUGH ITS SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CIRCLE vs RAMVIR SINGH

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 25.8.1998 passed by District Consumer Forum, Muzaffarnagar in Complaint Case No. 36/1997. The facts of the case as stated in brief are as follows.

THE complainant Ramvir Singh, resident of village Bamanhedi Tehsil and District Muzaffarnagar, is bhumidhar farmer. In order to irrigate his fields he got a power connection No. 11/21775 of 7.5 H.P. sanctioned from the opposite party to operate the tubewell. THE connection was sanctioned in the year 1982 and as such the complainant is the consumer of the opposite party. At the time the connection was sanctioned an agreement was entered into between the two parties, the terms and conditions of which are binding on them. One of the two parties has any power to terminate the agreement arbitrarily. As per the regulations and the notification issued by the opposite party the connections provided for the purposes of irrigation are governed by the rate, schedule known as L.M.V.-5. This gives option to the complainant to consume electricity either on metered basis or unmetered basis. THE complainant had taken unmetered supply and the same is incorporated in the agreement. THE rate of electricity on metered basis under L.M.V.-5 is 50 paisa per unit on the basis of meter reading and minimum charges have been prescribed as Rs. 55/- per H.P. For unmetered supply the rate is Rs. 50/- per month per H.P. Since the complainant is the consumer of the unmetered supply, therefore, he has been paying the bills @ Rs. 50/- per month per H.P. Later on by Notification No. 1105 HC dated 28.10.1996 the tariff per H.P. consumption was reduced to Rs. 40/- per month. THErefore, presently this rate of Rs. 40/- is prevalent and payable from 1.8.1996. THE opposite party is bound to charge this much amount of the tariff and cannot increase it as per terms of the agreement. In July, 1996 the opposite party installed a meter on the electrical connection of the complainant contrary to the provisions contained in the agreement and to the regulations notified by the opposite party. The complainant had not given any option for installing the meter. The rate schedule of the connection was changed from L.M.V. 5 to L.M.V. 6. L.M.V. 6 which is applicable on the industrial units and not on the farmers who use electricity for agricultural and irrigation purposes. After installing the meter in July, 1996 no bills were sent to the complainant nor any meter reading card was issued, rather on 20.9.1996 an illegal demand notice of a sum of Rs. 24,892.40 was issued to the complainant. The complainant protested against this notice and a notice was given to the opposite party on 30.9.1996 which was duly received by Executive Engineer of the opposite party on 1.10.1996. The reply sent to the complainant was contrary to the rules. The complainant was informed that the supply was given from urban feeder and, therefore, the billing on the connection is being done on the basis of L.M.V. 6. There was no such agreement between the two parties. Therefore, the reply sent was illegal.

As per rules of the opposite party the consumers using electricity for agricultural and irrigation purposes are issued bill books. The payments earlier made by the complainant till January, 1995 have been entered in the bill book and the receipt was issued by the opposite party. The complainant requested the opposite party to charge for the electricity consumption as per rate schedule LMV-5 and cancel the demand notice but his demand was not redressed. On 26.12.1996 the opposite party finally refused to consider the demand of the complainant and threatened to disconnect the electric supply and also collection of the amount specified in the demand note as arrears of land revenue. The complainant cannot be wrongly charged and on this ground the electricity provided to him cannot be disconnected. The complainant, therefore, lodged a claim before the District Consumer Forum claiming Rs. 11,000/- as compensation. A direction was also sought to be given to the opposite party not to realise from the complainant the amount shown in the demand notice dated 20.9.1996 and not to disconnect the electric supply sanctioned to the complainant. It was also claimed that the opposite party be directed to realise from the complainant for February, 1995 to July, 1996 an amount of Rs. 50/- per month per H.P. and from 1.8.1996 onwards an amount of Rs. 40/- p.m. per H.P. as provided under Tariff Rate Schedule LMV-5.

IN the written statement the opposite party admitted the electric connection sanctioned to the complainant of 7.5 H.P. but the rest of the allegations were denied. It was stated that the complainant had concealed the real facts. The complainant is not covered under the Schedule Rate LMV-5 and under Notification No. 1642-HC dated 15.7.1994 the complainant is covered under the category of rate schedule LMV-6 w.e.f. 16.7.1994. The electricity is given to the complainant from urban feeder and a meter has been installed on this connection w.e.f. 29.1.1996. The meters are not provided in the rural area. On 24.2.1997 the meter reading was 4600 and the bill for March, 1997 including the outstanding arrears was of the order of Rs. 33,802.10 p. Therefore, by notification dated 16.7.1994 the rate schedule of LMV-5 got changed into LMV-6 and in pursuance of this the charges to be paid by the complainant were on meter reading basis. For the period the meter was not installed the minimum charges for schedule LMV-6 were Rs. 95/- p.m. per H.P. and he was charged accordingly. By not paying the bills in time the surcharge was also levied and the complainant is liable to pay this amount. The complaint is not maintainable under the provisions of Public Money Recovery Act, Revenue Recovery Act and U.P. Electricity Dues Recovery Act. The complainant is not entitled to any relief. Parties led their respective evidence before the District Consumer Forum. The complainant filed his affidavit in support of allegations of the complaint. The opposite party filed various notifications issued by UPSEB along with the details of charges to be paid by the complainant. Affidavit of the Executive Engineer, opposite party No. 2 was also filed in support of the contentions raised in the written statement.

THE learned District Consumer Forum after hearing both the parties came to the conclusion that for the purpose of agriculture rate schedule LMV-5 is applicable on the complainant irrespective of the facts that the supply is given by urban feeder or rural feeder. THE complaint was, therefore, partly decreed and the opposite parties were directed to issue bill to the complainant as per the provisions of rate schedule LMV-5 and the complainant shall pay only that much amount within 15 days to the opposite party. Aggrieved of the order to District Consumer Forum the opposite party UPSEB has come in this appeal. The learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the electricity connection of the complainant was disconnected because of one payment of dues. The Notification issued by UPSEB cannot be challenged under Section 49/79 of the Electricity Supply Act. This was a dispute about the tariff determined by the Electricity Board and, therefore, on the question of rates the Forum cannot entertain the complaint. On the other hand the learned Counsel for the respondent has argued that there was an agreement between the two parties according to which the opposite party was bound to charge from the complainant only the charges meant for irrigation and agricultural purposes under Schedule Rate LMV-5 and any charge over and above under rate schedule LMV-6 cannot be levied by the opposite party. Therefore, electricity bill should have been charged on the basis of the rate Schedule LMV-5.

A perusal of the appeal file goes to show that the dispute relate relates to the rates of the electricity. The appellant''s contention is that the Board in exercise of the power conferred under the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act can make change in the tariff rates and accordingly the rate schedule can be changed. Thus the regulations and rules framed cannot be challenged in the Consumer Forum and the complainant is bound to follow the regulations. On the contrary the complainant''s case is that he has entered into an agreement according to which he was to be charged only that much amount for consumption of electricity which was made applicable under the Rate Schedule LMV-5 and the agreement entered into between two parties was for LMV-5 only. A perusal of the copy of the undertaking signed by both the parties goes to show that terms and conditions of the agreement would remain in force unless either of the parties give the notice of 30 days. Paragraph 2 of the undertaking clearly states that both the parties agree that the rates of electricity consumption were to be fixed by UPSEB and the complainant was bound by this condition which included the payment other than those specified in the agreement. Paragraph 9 of the undertaking also clearly specifies that the parties were bound to follow the changes and amendments which are notified under the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 and the Rules and Regulations made thereunder as also the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and the rules made thereto.

PAPER No. 31 of the memo of appeal is the copy of the notification issued by UPSEB. This notification has been issued in exercise of the power under Section 49 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948. Para 2 of the notification clearly spells out that any agreement in regard to supply of electricity shall be replaced by the provisions contained in the notification w.e.f. 16.7.1994. A study of the rate schedule LMV-6 page 32 of the memo of appeal goes to show that the schedule applies to all consumers of electrical energy having a load upto 100 H.P. for industrial/processing or agro industrial purposes, pumping sets getting supply other than Rural Schedule powerlooms and to other power consumers. The affidavit filed by opposite party No. 2 before District Consumer Forum also supports this view. In para 3 of the affidavit it has been stated that w.e.f. 16.7.1994 the electrical connection of the complainant has been converted into LMV-6 under which the supply is made through urban feeder and meter has been installed. A perusal of Annexure-2 page 44 of the Memo of appeal reveals that the rate schedule shall also apply to consumers existing on 1.2.1986 and/or those consumers who executed agreement/declaration upto 31.1.1986. Therefore, in view of the fact that an undertaking was signed by both the parties on 30.4.1981 to the effect that the rates are subject to change over and above the provisions of agreement, the complainant cannot challenge the notification issued by the Electricity Board subsequently changing the connection from LMV-5 to LMV-6.

In case reported in 1997 (2) CPR 35 (NC), the National Commission has held that Consumer Forums are not vested with the power to adjudicate up on the validity of statutory provisions enacted by Legislature or by a sub-ordinate body empowered by Legislature to make rules, regulations or statutory orders. Such powers vest only in the regular Courts of the land and the function of the Consumer Forum is only to decide cases coming up before them by giving effect to the laws (including rules, regulations, orders etc. which are statutory) as they stand.

THE charges for supply of electrical energy can be increased along with the tariff schedule as may be enforced from time to time in order to see that tariff structure may be kept dynamic with the changing need of both consumer and the Electricity Board or any other Tariff Regulatory Authority concerning supply of electricity. Perhaps the District Forum did not thoroughly go through the provisions of Undertaking entered into between the two parties in the year 1981 and also the provisions of Electricity Supply Act. In the circumstances we find that the order of District Forum to direct the opposite party to charge the complainant at a certain rate is not justified and the judgment and order are liable to be set aside. THErefore, the appeal is liable to be allowed. ORDER THE appeal is allowed. THE judgment and order passed by District Consumer Forum are set aside. THEre will be no order as to costs. Let copy as per rules be made available to the parties. Appeal allowed.