State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shivdattakrupa Dairy ... vs Superintending Engineer,Maharashtra ... on 22 March, 2010
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD . Date of filing:19.04.2005 Date of order:22.03.2010 F.A. NO.: 763 OF 2005 IN COMPLAINT CASE NO. : 183 OF 2004 DISTRICT FORUM : AHMEDNAGAR. Shivdattakrupa Dairy Pvt.Ltd., Hiradgaon, TQ.Shrigonda, Dist.Ahmednagar, Through Deelip Haribhau Darekar. APPELLANT (Org.Complainant) VERSUS 1. Superintending Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity Board, C & H Circle, Station Road, Ahmednagar. 2. Assistant Accountant, Maharashtra state Electricity Board, Shrigonda Office, Shrigonda, Dist.Ahmednagar. 3. Assistant Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity Board, Shrigonda Office, Shrigonda, Dist.Ahmednagar. RESPONDENTS (Org.Opponents) Date of filing:16.06.2005 Date of order:22.03.2010 F.A. NO.: 1075 OF 2005 IN COMPLAINT CASE NO. : 183 OF 2004 DISTRICT FORUM : AHMEDNAGAR. 1. The Supdt., M.S.E.B. Hiradgaon, TQ.Shrigonda, Dist.Ahmednagar. 2. Assistant Accountant, M.S.E.B., Shrigonda, Dist.Ahmednagar. 3. Assistant Engineer, M.S.E.B., Shrigonda, Tq.Shrigonda, Dist.Ahmednagar. APPELLANTS (Org.Opponents) VERSUS Shivdattakrupa Dairy Pvt.Ltd., Hiradgaon, TQ.Shrigonda, Dist.Ahmednagar. RESPONDENT (Org.Complainant) Coram : Shri.S.G.Deshmukh, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.
Mrs.Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Member.
Present : Adv.Smt.C.S.Deshmukh for org.complainant, Adv.Shri.S.N.Tandale for M.S.E.B. Adv.Smt.Smita Medhekar for M.S.E.B. O R A L O R D E R Per Shri.S.G.Deshmukh, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.
1. These two appeals have been filed by original complainant and original respondent MSEB against the judgment and order dated 19.03.2005 in complaint case No. 183/04 passed by District Forum, Ahmednagar for quashing and setting aside the judgment and order.
2. Complainant`s case before the Forum is that, complainant is private limited company having registered office at Hiradgaon, Tq.Shrigonda, Dist.Ahmednagar. Complainant is carrying on business of procuring, processing, producing & manufacturing the milk products and milk preparations of all kinds. It is contended that complainant unit has been established to provide fare rates for the agriculturists and milk producers by collecting milk and by processing the same and also converting into milk product and to provide self employment to villagers. It is contended that complainant had taken electric connection for 62 HP. It is contended that bills issued by MSEB were paid regularly by the complainant time to time. It is contended that all of sudden on 24.6.2004 Flying Squad of MSEB visited the factory and prepared joint panchanama. According to them 50 X 5 AMP meter has been provided and CT of 100 X 5 AMP has been provided but while issuing bills instead of 2 multiplier 1 multiplier has been charged and since inception there is wrong calculation on the part of MSEB. Due to mistake of MSEB 1,32,210 unit has been charged less than actual consumption.
Thus they issued bill on 2.7.2004 directing complainant to pay Rs.4,44,220/-. It is contended that complainant has not committed any mistake nor there was any tampering with meter or electric instruments at the hands of complainant. Issuance of incorrect or excessive bills forcing complainant to pay same amounts to negligence and deficiency in service on the part of MSEB. It is contended that complainant has to make provisions in respect of expenses. There is no fault on the part of complainant. Thus complainant approached the Forum for declaration of bill dated 2.7.2004 as excessive, exorbitant and not binding on complainant and directing them to issue fresh and proper bill.
3. Present appellant appeared before the Forum and resisted the claim. It is contended that MSEB had sanctioned load of 62 HP to the complainant and at the time of giving connection 50 X 5 AMP meter was given but electric supply fan 100 X 5 AMP is recorded as half and therefore at the time of taking meter reading it is necessary to multiply by 2 to show actual unit. It is contended that concern engineer inadvertently could not give report of half capacity to billing section the bill was given without multiplying by 2. This fact came to the notice of appellant on 24.6.2004 and bill was given on correct calculation for remaining units.
4. The Forum below after going through the papers and hearing the parties awarded time of 6 months to pay electric bill dated 2.7.2004 amounting to Rs.4,44,220/- and directed M.S.E.B. not to disconnect electric supply till 19.09.2005 and cost of Rs.1000/-. Forum also directed M.S.E.B. to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and to adjust the amount in the electric bills of the complainant.
5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order passed by the District Forum, Ahmednagar, complainant as well as MSEB came in appeal.
6. Notices were issued to the appellant as well as respondent in both the appeals. Learned counsel Smt.C.S.Deshmukh appeared on behalf of complainant whereas learned counsel Shri.S.N.Tandale and Smt.Medhekar appeared on behalf of M.S.E.B. We heard both the counsels at sufficient length. Learned counsel Smt.Deshmukh submitted that complainant company is a firm to provide fare rates for agriculturists and milk producers by collecting milk and processing the same and thereby providing employment to the unemployed youth of villagers. She submitted that by slapping of huge supplementary bill on the basis of miscalculation on the part of employees of MSEB is likely to result in undue and incalculable loss. She submitted that company is to make the provisions in respect of expenses to be incurred. There is no scope for recovery of the same. She submitted that alleged mistake of billing is not attributable to any act on the part of company. She submitted that amount claimed in supplementary bill is hopelessly time barred. According to her supplementary bill issued cannot be said to be amount due as periodical bills raised by MSEB based on actual reading have been paid by complainant regularly. She further submitted that U/s 126 of Electricity Act 2003 M.S.E.B. is entitled to recover the amount of difference if any for a period of six months preceding the date of inception and not more. According to learned counsel in the instant case period relates to year 1999. She submitted that complainant can not be penalized for the mistake on the part of MSEB staff. She also submitted that it is only Electric Inspector who can decide whether meter is correct and is to estimate the amount of energy supply to the consumer. She relied on Khurshed Sorabji Cooper V/s- Bombay Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking reported in AIR 1995 BOMBAY 79.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel Shri.Tandale submitted that 50 X 5 AMP meter has been provided and CT of 100 X 5 has been provided to the complainant but while issuing bills in respect of 2 multiplier, 1 multiplier has been charged by mistake since inception and thus there was wrong calculation. Learned counsel submitted that this fact came to the notice of M.S.E.B. when Flying Squad visited the factory on 24.6.2004. He submitted that there is no prohibition or ban to issue bill by assessing actual consumption by charging 2 multiplier after knowledge of the mistake. According to him additional amount has been claimed not on the ground of the faulty meter but on the basis of failure to charge 2 multiplier reading. Learned counsel submitted that restriction of six months U/s 126 of Electricity Act 2003 does not apply to the present bills. Learned counsel relied on;
i) U.A.Thandani & another Vs- B.E.S.T.Undertaking and another, AIR 2000 Bombay 264,
ii) M/s Bharat Barrel & Drum Manufacturing Co., AIR 1978 Bombay 369,
iii) Maharashtra State Electricity Board Vs- M/s Swastik Industries, 1996(3) CPR 182.
8. We perused the papers and gave our anxious thoughts to the arguments advanced by both the counsels and citations relied by them. There is no dispute that complainant is private limited company carrying on business of procuring, processing, producing and manufacturing milk products. Complainant has taken electric supply. Complainant was provided 50 X 5 Amp and CT of 100 X 5 Amp. It is also not disputed that periodical bills raised by MSEB based upon actual reading have been paid by complainant. It is the contention of M.S.E.B. that in the inspection of Flying Squad on 24.6.2004 it was noticed that meter reading was not multiplied by factor 2 since inception. Thus there was wrong calculation.
9. In M/s Bharat Barrel & Drum Manufacturing Co.Pvt.Ltd.`s case(Supra) the Hon`ble High Court,Bombay held that;
The Provision in S.24 of the Electricity Act has to be properly appreciated in the context of the obligations case and restriction placed on the licensee U/s 22,22A, 22B and 23 and 24 itself. In the light of these statutory provisions there is no warrant to read the word due in the narrower sense viz. as only restricted to amounts within the period of limitation or which could be successfully claimed by a suit. In other words there is no logical basis shown for preferring the narrower construction to the ordinary construction i.e. the wider construction. The wider meaning would be made in accord with the scheme of statutory provisions as also with commercial honesty.
(B) Electricity Act ( 9 of 1910) S.26 six months limitation Licensee claiming that reading of the meter was required to be doubled in order to get real consumption- six months restriction has no application to such a claim.
10. In U.A.Thadani and another `s case (Supra) the Hon`ble High Court, Bombay held that ;
(A) Electricity Act (9 of 1910), S23 Dispute as to electricity bill Limitation for claim Human error while raising electricity bills inasmuch as reading on meter not multiplied by multiplying factor which was essential to arrive at actual electricity consumed Debit notes issued by Electricity Board for correction of bills Amount claimed by debit notes cannot be held to be not the amount due since applicants had consumed electricity but were under billed Six months restriction of claiming bills as contemplated by S.26 Not applicable in such case where consumer was under billed due to clerical mistake or human error or such like mistake.
11. There can not be dispute that present case is not the case where electric meter is found defective. Even it is not the case of complainant that consumer is found indulging unauthorized use of electricity. There is also no dispute about correctness of the reading shown on the meter. It is apparent that the reading which was shown in the meter was not multiplied by multiplying factor 2 which was necessary to arrive at actual electricity consumed. This error has come to the notice of MSEB at the time of inspection on 24.6.2004 by Flying Squad. So it was clerical error while raising bills for energy consumption. It is apparent that while raising bills from 11.8.1999 to July 2004 it was not multiplied by multiplying factor 2 which resulted into the error. Thus same is sought to be corrected by issuing supplementary bill of Rs.4,44,220.50ps. This additional bill or supplementary bill for the period 11.8.99 to July 2004 is not on the basis of faulty meter but is on the basis of failure to multiply by multiplying factor 2.
Section 126 of Electricity Act 2003 is applicable in the case where consumer is found indulging in unauthorized use of electricity where unauthorized use is presumed to be continued for the period of 6 months immediately preceding the date of inspection for either domestic or agricultural service. We have mentioned that failure to multiply reading by 2 is clerical mistake committed by MSEB staff. However the complainant is required to make the payment for which complainant is to make provision for the unexpected expenses. Single consolidated bill is prepared and given to complainant, which barred him from availing slab benefits. Certainly inconvenience is caused to the complainant. Restriction as to six months period provided in Section 126(5) of Electricity Act 2003 has no application to a demand made by MSEB for the unpaid amount for electricity consumed as complainant was under-billed due to mistake of MSEB staff. The Forum below has rightly considered this aspect while allowing complainant to deposit the same in instalments. Forum directed M.S.E.B. to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation which appears to be exorbitant when complainant is held liable to make payment for demand made by MSEB for unpaid amount for electricity. In our view the MSEB is to be directed to pay amount of Rs.5000/- towards compensation as a token for the fault of their employee. Complainant is to recover this amount from faulted employees by fixing the liability for the same. We pass the following order.
O R D E R
1. Appeal No.1075/05 is partly allowed and order passed by Dist.Forum is modified as follows.
2. M.S.E.B. is directed to pay Rs.5000/- towards compensation instead of Rs.50,000- to the complainant.
3. Rest of the order is maintained as it is.
4. Accordingly, appeal No.763/05 is also disposed of.
5. No order as to cost.
6. Pronounced and dictated in the open court.
7. Copies of the order be sent to both the parties.
Mrs.Uma S.Bora S.G.Deshmukh, Member Presiding Judicial Member Mane