State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Delhi Vidyut Board, vs Sai Industries on 20 September, 2006
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 clause (b)of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ) Date of Decision: -20-09-2006 Appeal No. FA-786/2006 (Arising from the order dated 17-04-2006 passed by District Forum-III, Janakpuri, New Delhi in Complaint Case No.238/2001 ) Delhi Vidyut Board, Appellant Shakti Bhawan, Through Nehru Place, Mr. I.S. Alag, New Delhi-110018. Advocate. Versus 1. Sai Industries Respondents 2. Shri Pyare Mohan, 3. Shri Rajinder Mohan, 4. Shri Kailash Mohan, F-13, Udyog Nagar, Rohtak Road, New delhi-110041. CORAM : Justice J.D. Kapoor- President Ms. Rumnita Mittal - Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
JUSTICE J.D. KAPOOR, PRESIDENT (ORAL) Vide impugned order dated 17th April 2006 the appellant has been directed to withdraw the misuse penalty in respect of the electricity bill raised by it from January 1994 when it was first levied on the basis of the first inspection report conducted on 31-12-1993 after adjusting Rs. 65,009.60p which has already been given to the respondent and refund the balance and pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony and Rs. 2,000/- as cost of litigation. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal.
2. Allegations of the respondent in brief were that on 31-12-1993 the staff of appellant visited the premises of the respondent and made false inspection report without giving any copy to him. The connected load was calculated on the imaginary basis and bills were raised on the basis of this imaginary connected load and penalty was imposed without any notice. The respondents firm deposited Rs. 100/- for reinspection on 23-03-1995. The reinspection was carried out on 15-10-1996, after more than a year. On reinspection, everything was found in order and sanctioned load only was found being utilised. However, appellant started raising bills on the imaginary connected load with penalty.
The respondent had to pay the bills under threat of disconnection. Appellant sent a letter on 22-11-1997 assuring the respondent of necessary corrective steps being taken for withdrawal of the penalty. However, no action was taken till May,
99. In the bill for the month of July 99 a net credit of Rs. 65,009.50 was given after adjusting an amount of Rs. 2,19,104.79 against the bill out of the total refund of Rs. 2,84,114.39. The respondent however, remained unsatisfied and vide this complaint prayed for refund of Rs. 3,72,000/- with interest at 12% per annum from May 1999 till payment, Rs. 25,000/- as damages and cost of the complaint.
3. As against this the version of the appellant was that during inspection connected load was found 103.7 HP+2.21/W against the sanctioned load of 71.50 HP.
One shunt capacitor of inadequate capacity of 2x10 Kuar was found installed without valid MCD licence.
Respondent was also directed to show MCD licence. The premises was again visited on representation of the respondent on 15-10-1996 in the presence of Sh. Pyare Mohan and other partners. During this visit the connected load was found 106.7 HP (79.62 KW) against sanctioned load of 71.50HP. During this inspection one injection moulding machine was also found which was not entered in the MCD licence. Two shunt capacitors of 5 Kuar x 4+10 Kuar x 2 (total 40 Kuar) were also found installed. The report was prepared and signed by the partner Shri Pyare Mohan. As the connected load at the time of both the inspections was more than the sanctioned load bills were raised and penalty was imposed as per rules. However, on the representation of the respondent the case was thoroughly reviewed and a relief of Rs. 2,84,114.39 was allowed. Net credit of Rs. 65,000/-
after adjusting the bill of Rs. 2,19,104.79 was given. The respondent was informed by letter dated 03-04-2001.
4. As is apparent from the aforesaid conspectus of rival claims of the parties the appellant vide its letter dated 03-04-2001 informed the respondent about the corrective action with regard to the withdrawal of the misuse and imposition of penalty stating that higher tariff was withdrawn from 01-04-1997 amounting to Rs. 2,84,114.39.
Copy of the noting filed by the appellant before the District Forum with regard to the above withdrawal showed that a sum of Rs. 2,06,474.39 on account of LPF w.e.f. November, 1996 to May 1999 and Rs. 77,640/- on account of HP w.e.f. October 1996 to May 1999 was withdrawn. Inspite of this only credit of Rs. 65,009.60 was given and no credit balance amount of higher tariff levied by it was given. It was stated by the Counsel for the appellant that the credit for higher tariff levied for the earlier period was not given because it was time barred period.
5. Once the representation and legal notice was served by the respondent and mistake was detected by the appellant in the inspection report and levy of higher tariff on account of misuse and LPF, credit balance of higher tariff levied prior to November 1996 period should have automatically allowed. No party can be permitted to enjoy benefit which it is not entitled to merely on the premise that such a benefit had become time barred.
6. The disputes under the Consumer Protection Act are to be decided on equitable grounds. Consumer Fora are more or less fora of equity. If service provider is found to be deficient in service the consumer is entitled for the benefit arising from the deficiency or wrongful action of the service provider.
7. In our view nothing prevented the appellant from withdrawing the higher tariff levied by it for the period from 1994-95 as retention of such an amount was unauthorised and illegal.
8. We do not find any merit in the appeal and dismiss the same in-limine.
9. F.D.R./Bank Guarantee, if any, furnished by the appellant be returned forthwith after completion of due formalities.
10. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.
11. Announced on 20th September, 2006.
(Justice J.D. Kapoor) President (Rumnita Mittal) Member jj