State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
U P P C L vs Akhilesh Kumar on 5 October, 2023
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UP C-1 Vikrant Khand 1 (Near Shaheed Path), Gomti Nagar Lucknow-226010 First Appeal No. A/2004/525 ( Date of Filing : 04 Mar 2004 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated in Case No. of District State Commission) 1. Akhilesh Kumar A ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. U P P C L A ...........Respondent(s) First Appeal No. A/2004/336 ( Date of Filing : 15 Apr 2004 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated in Case No. of District Hardoi) 1. U P P C L A ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Akhilesh Kumar A ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'ABLE MR. JUSTICE PRESIDENT PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. SUDHA UPADHYAY MEMBER PRESENT: Dated : 05 Oct 2023 Final Order / Judgement RESERVED STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW APPEAL NO. 336 OF 2004 (Against the judgment/order dated 06-01-2004 in Complaint No. 186/2003 of the District Consumer Commission, Mainpuri Executive Engineer Electricity Distribution Division, Mainpuri District Mainpuri Sub Divisional Officer-III Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited Mainpuri ... Appellants Versus Akhilesh Kumar Through N. S. Ice & Cold Storage Sothra Varnahal, District Mainpuri ...Respondent AND APPEAL NO. 525 OF 2004 (Against the judgment/order dated 06-01-2004 in Complaint No. 186/2003 of the District Consumer Commission, Mainpuri Akhilesh Kumar Through N. S. Ice & Cold Storage Sothra Varnahal, District Mainpuri ...Appellant Versus Executive Engineer Electricity Distribution Division U.P.P.C.L., Devi Road, Mainpuri ...Respondent BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR, PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. SUDHA UPADHYAY, MEMBER
For the Appellant/O.P. : Mr. Deepak Mehrotra, Advocate.
For the Respondent/
Complainant : None appeared.
Dated : -10-2023
JUDGMENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR, PRESIDENT
:2:
These two appeals have been filed under Section-15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the same judgment and order dated 06-01-2004 passed by District Consumer Commission, Mainpuri in Complaint Case No. 186/2003, as such both appeals are being decided by a common judgment.
Both these appeals having arisen out of the common facts are taken up together for decision.
Appeal No. 336/2004 has been filed by Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, Mainpuri, who is the opposite party in complaint.
Appeal No. 525/2004 has been preferred by Akhilesh Kumar through N. S. Ice and Cold Storage Private Limited who is complainant in complaint for enhancement of compensation.
Vide impugned judgment and order, the District Consumer Commission has allowed complaint and has passed the following order:-
"Therefore opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant by making payment of Rs. Seven Lakh (Rs.7,00,000/-) although losses caused to the complainant are irreparable as more then a dozen cases have been filed by the potatoes owners, whose potatoes have been rotten on account of non supply of energy when it was most needed. The detailed description has been given by the complainant in his affidavit.
Besides this opposite party is also ordered to pay Rs.2,000/- as litigation charges.
These amounts are to be paid within a month or else an interest of 9% per annum shall also be paid by them till the date of actual payment."
Feeling aggrieved with the judgment and order passed by the District Consumer Commission, the complainant as well as opposite party have filed these appeals.
:3:In Appeal No. 336/2004 Sri Deepak Mehrotra, learned Counsel for the appellant/opposite party appeared while no one has appeared on behalf of the respondent/complainant in this appeal.
In Appeal No. 525/2004 no one has appeared on behalf of the appellant/complainant while Sri Deepak Mehrotra, learned Counsel for the respondent/opposite party appeared in this appeal.
I have heard learned Counsel for the appellant/opposite party and have gone through the impugned judgment and order as well as records of the case.
Facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant Sri Akhilesh Kumar has asserted that he took an electricity connection from the opposite party to run his Cold Storage, situated at Mainpuri. It has been stated by the complainant that the opposite party, without giving a valid notice, has disconnected the connection of Cold Storage on 29-03-2003. It was done malafidely to harass him and to harm him. The complainant was pressurized to make wrong payment.
It has been further alleged by the complainant in his complaint that he was compelled to make the payment of Rs.1,21,089/- plus Rs.8,000/- and only after deposition of this amount, the connection was restored on 10-04-2003.
It has been stated by the complainant that on account of non-supply of electricity continuously with effect from 29-03-2003 to 10-04-2003, the potato kept in Cold Storage got rotten to great extent and thus complainant has suffered huge loss. Only an amount of Rs.86,963/- was due before the connection was disconnected. The complainant has to pay disputed amount of Rs.1,21,089/- and excess payment of Rs.34,126/- has to be paid.
It is stated by the complainant that on receipt of the notice from the Forum for contesting the complaint, the opposite party threatened the complainant to withdraw the complaint or face consequences of disconnection again. The complainant made payment of Rs.1,00,000/- towards clearance of bill but just to harass him, it was returned which has been filed with the complaint. The opposite party has converted his :4: threat into reality by disconnecting the connection again on 30-07-2003 and again jeopardize the functioning of the cold storage.
The complainant approached the Forum with the complaint stating the above facts and presented a bill of July, 2003 in which a direction was given by the opposite party that the payment of dues be made by 08-08-2003 or else the connection would be disconnected on 16-08-2003. The opposite party instead of waiting for the time limit of payment disconnected the connection.
The opposite party was directed to receive the cheque of Rs.1,00,000/- only and to restore the connection for the time being to save the complainant from irreparable loss on account of non supply of electricity. The complainant has further paid Rs.50,000/- towards part payment of outstanding bills. Rest amount has not been paid by the complainant on the ground that;
10% rebate admissible to the connection holders of rural areas getting electricity from Rural Feeder has not been given.
The opposite party has not given off season concession to the complainant, through his Cold Storage is classified as seasonal industry.
Opposite party has no right to take MRI reading to determine the violations in rural side seasonal Industries like this.
Opposite party has failed to adjust the M.G. at the end of year as per rules.
As the opposite party has not revised the bills as per rules, the opposite party has again disconnected the connection in the month of December, 2003 again on non payment.
As such the complainant has prayed that the revised bill be got prepared after allowing all the benefit permissible under law so that he may make the payment of bills. He has further asked for restoration of connection to save further loss. For harassment and loss suffered on account of disservice, a compensation of Rs.14,00,000/- and Rs.2,000/- as litigation charges be also awarded to him.
:5:The opposite party has contested the case before the learned District Consumer Commission and filed its written statement and denied the allegations made in the complaint.
After having considered the pleadings of parties as well as materials available on record the District Consumer Commission is of the view that the opposite party has committed deficiency in service and has passed order accordingly as mentioned above.
Learned Counsel for the appellant/opposite party has argued that the impugned judgment and order is absolutely illegal, unjust and arbitrary. He also argued that the judgment and order is highly unreasonable and lacks application of mind.
It has been further argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant/opposite party that the judgment and order is without jurisdiction. The dispute sought to be raised by the complainant and the matters relating to grant of rebates etc. does not come under the definition of consumer disputes. The complainant had been a habitual defaulter.
It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant/opposite party that the opposite party has also produced the details of dues and clarifications on the claim of various kind of rebates made by the complainant but the learned District Consumer Commission has not considered it and has passed the order.
It has been further contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant/opposite party that the finding given by the learned District Consumer Commission on the point of off-season rebate to the complainant is also perverse finding and based upon wrong interpretations. The learned District Consumer Commission has wrongly quashed the genuine bills and demands raised by the opposite party.
Learned Counsel for the appellant/opposite party has argued that the impugned order is without appreciation of correct fact and law and is based on presumption and assumption, hence it is liable to be set aside.
:6:It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant/opposite party that no deficiency in service has been committed by the opposite party. The complaint has been filed for only harassing and to gain undue money from the appellant/opposite party. The learned District Consumer Commission has not properly appreciated the correct evidence which are on record and judgment was passed which is arbitrary in nature. The complainant has no right to file any complaint against the appellant/opposite party and therefore, the impugned judgment allowing the complaint against the appellant is wholly not maintainable is liable to be set aside.
I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant/opposite party and perused the record.
I have also perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned District Consumer Commission, Mainpuri.
The learned District Consumer Commission after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and after perusing the material available on record as well as the evidence adduced by both the parties has come to the conclusion that the entire dispute revolves from non payment of bill, which has not been prepared according to the rules and regulations of the Corporation. The complainant is entitled to get 10% rebate as he is consumer of rural areas and is getting supply from rural schedule. It has also come to the conclusion that the complainant's cold storage is a classified off season industry and hence, all the seasonal concession has to be given by the opposite party. The learned District Consumer Commission has also opined that MRI readings and charging of penalty is also against the rules. The opposite party is not competent to realize such penalty on the basis of the Meter Resonance Images.
Further finding recorded by the learned District Consumer Commission is that the opposite party is not competent to realize such penalty on the basis of the Meter Resonance Images. The opposite party has again not acted fairly by not granting M. G. Benefit as per rules. It has been granted very late in the month of May, 2003 instead of at the end of the previous year or in the month of January to March, 2003.
:7:Thus the connection of the complainant would have not been disconnected in the month of March, 2003. Thus the dues upto March were only upto Rs.86,000/- approximately and M.G. benefit was due Rs.91,000/- and more. The delay in grating M.G. benefit for which the complainant was legally entitled has done a great loss. This is the highhandedness of the opposite party which has caused loss to him and his connection remained disconnected in the month of March, 2003 till 10-04-2003.
Similarly in the month of July and August, 2003 the opposite party himself granted time upto 08-08-2003 for payment and disconnection upto 16-08-2003 but the opposite party again showed high handedness to disconnect the connection on 30-07-2003 prior to the date prescribed by him. The opposite party has done a great loss and has caused great damage to the extent of several lakhs of rupees by illegal disconnection without notice, therefore, the opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant by making a payment of Rs.7,00,000/- although the losses caused to the complainant are irreparable as more than a dozen cases have been filed by the potato owners, whose potatoes have been rotten on account of non supply of energy.
The above mentioned conclusion given by the learned District Consumer Commission is absolutely correct and justified in the eyes of law and I do not find that any interference is required in it.
I do not find any force in the argument of learned Counsel for the appellant/opposite party.
In view of the aforesaid and after hearing the learned Counsel for the appellant/opposite party and after going through the material and evidence available on record and particularly the findings recorded by the learned District Consumer Commission, I am of the considered opinion that the order passed by the learned District Consumer Commission is fully justified and is liable to be upheld with slight modification that interest awarded by learned District Consumer Commission at the rate of 9% is reduced to at the rate of :8: 6% per annum. With this modification the Appeal No. A/336/2004 is liable to be partly allowed. The Appeal No. A/525/2004 filed by the appellant/complainant for enhancement of compensation is liable to be dismissed.
ORDER Appeal No. 336/2004 filed by the appellant/opposite party is allowed in part with the modification that interest awarded by learned District Consumer Commission at the rate of 9% is reduced to at the rate of 6% per annum. The rest part of the impugned order will remain unchanged.
Appeal No. 525/2004 filed by the appellant/complainant is dismissed.
Parties shall bear their own costs.
The amount deposited if any by the appellant under Section-15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 in these appeals shall be remitted to the District Consumer Commission, Mainpuri alongwith interest accrued, if any, in accordance with law.
Let copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules.
The Stenographer is requested to upload this order on the website of this Commission at the earliest.
This judgment shall be placed on the record of Appeal No. 336 of 2004 with its copy to be laid on the record of other Appeal No. 525 of 2004.
( JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR ) ( SUDHA UPADHYAY ) PRESIDENT MEMBER pnt [HON'ABLE MR. JUSTICE PRESIDENT] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MRS. SUDHA UPADHYAY] MEMBER