Allahabad High Court
Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam ... vs Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum ... on 23 May, 2025
Author: Pankaj Bhatia
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:30719 Reserved Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11252 of 2020 Petitioner :- Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd.Thru M.D. Lko And Anr. Respondent :- Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum Lucknow And Anr. Counsel for Petitioner :- Aprajita Bansal Counsel for Respondent :- Tanveer Ahmad Siddiqui, Bidhan Chandra Rai, Divyanshu Bhatt, Shashwat Singh, Tanveer Ahmad Siddiqui AND Case :- WRIT - C No. - 12812 of 2020 Petitioner :- M/S Tribhuwan Industries Ltd. Thru Shiv Shanker Awasthi Respondent :- Consumeer Grievance Redressal Forum Lucknow And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Tanveer Ahmad Siddiqui, Bidhan Chandra Rai, Divyanshu Bhatt, Shashwat Singh,Tanveer Ahmad Siddiqui Counsel for Respondent :- Aprajita Bansal Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
1. Heard Ms. Aparajita Bansal the counsel for petitioner and Sri Bidhan Chandra Rai, the counsel for the respondent.
2. These two cross writ petitions have been filed challenging the order dated 14.11.2019 and amended on 09.06.2020 passed by Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Lucknow (CGRF). In the writ petition No.11252 of 2020 filed by the Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, prayer has been made for quashing of the impugned order while in the writ petition No.12812 of 2020 filed by Tribhuvan industries Limited, a further prayer is made for directions to the respondent No.2 & 3 to pay interest from the respective dates, as and when the excess amount became refundable until the entire amount is completely discharged.
3. Since both the writ petitions arise out of the same order dated 14.11.2019 passed by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Lucknow, hence the same are being decided by this common order. For convenience, the facts of Writ-C No.11252 of 2020 is being taken up.
4. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondent M/s Tribhuwan Industries was having a connection from the electricity department. From 1997 till 2003 inflated bills were raised and charged from the respondent. The respondent M/s Tribhuwan Industries repeatedly asked for correction of bill and refund of excess amount. Since the same was not done, disconnection took place on 20.02.2003.
5. A dispute was raised by the respondent M/s Tribhuwan Industries before CGRF for refund under different heads and for interest also, which was partly allowed by order dated 09.03.2005 by CGRF. For the remaining amounts, the respondent M/s Tribhuwan Industries approached Ombudsman who has allowed the remaining claims also, by its order dated 28.10.2010. All the said claims were up till the year 2003, which were finally decided by the Ombudsman. Against the same, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court in which no interim order was ever granted and the same was dismissed on 13.05.2016. Meanwhile the power was reconnected to M/s Tribhuwan Industries in September 2005.
6. Since inflated bills were still being raised after September 2005, hence, the respondent M/s Tribhuwan Industries applied for and got permanent disconnection in October 2015. The respondent M/s Tribhuwan Industries claimed refund of excess amount charged from September 2005 to October 2015 and further interest upon the same. The respondent M/s Tribhuwan Industries also prayed that the excess amount and interest charged be adjusted in the running bills of its sister concern. The petitioner proposed a final bill dated 25.06.2016 for approval to its Executive Engineer, proposing refund of all amounts as per order of the ombudsman dated 28.10.2010 and further refund of excess amount charged from the September 2005 to October 2015, but did not propose to pay any interest for the excess amount charged for the said period i.e. September 2005 to October 2015.
7. By an order dated 19.11.2016, the Executive Engineer accepted the proposed final bill dated 25.06.2016 and directed refund as per the terms prescribed in that order. The order was absolutely silent with regard to interest for the period September 2005 to October 2015. The final bill and order of Executive Engineer further required the respondent M/s Tribhuwan Industries and its sister concern to provide affidavits accepting the aforesaid order providing adjustment of amount of consumer in regular bills of its sister concern and not to dispute the same later in time. Such affidavits were taken from both of them on 29.09.2016, i.e. after proposing the final bill dated 25.06.2016 but prior to passing of order of Executive Engineer dated 19.11.2016. The excess amounts as per order dated 19.11.2016 were adjusted in the bills of the sister concern till February 2018 in instalments.
8. By a communication dated 29.05.2018, the respondent M/s Tribhuwan Industries asked for interest on the excess amount charged from the year 2005 to 2015, which was denied by a communication of Executive Engineer dated 01.08.2018. Thus, a petition was filed by the respondent M/s Tribhuwan Industries before CGRF. By order dated 14.11.2019 (as amended on 09.06.2020), the CGRF allowed the petition and granted interest for the year 2016-20 and till it is paid, but, did not give any interest for the period 2005-2016. The petitioner now has challenged the order of CGRF dated 14.11.2019 as amended on 09.06.2020 to the extent, it has granted interest for the years 2016-2020, and the respondent M/s Tribhuwan Industries has challenged the same to the extent interest has been denied for the years 2005-2016 by filing the two cross writ petitions.
9. With this background, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised three submissions, the first submission is that since the respondent M/s Tribhuwan Industries has not challenged the order of the Executive Engineer dated 19.11.2016 hence the relief of interest sought by the respondent is defective and cannot be granted. Her next contention is, that, by his affidavit dated 29.09.2016 filed before the petitioner, the respondent M/s Tribhuwan Industries has waived his right to raise any dispute with regard to any amount of interest or further claim, beyond what is granted by the order of Executive Engineer dated 19.11.2016. The third and last contention is that since the ombudsman, by its order dated 28.10.2010, had already decided issues between the parties; hence thereafter the CGRF had no jurisdiction to enter into the matter.
10. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent M/s Tribhuwan Industries states that the claim before the ombudsman earlier was for the inflated bills raised from 1997 till 2003, when first disconnection took place. The interest paid as per the order of ombudsman was also for the amounts excessively charged in the aforesaid period. Again the electricity was reconnected in the September 2005 and was finally disconnected in the October 2015 and now interest over the excess amount charged in the said period of 2005 to 2015 is being claimed.
11. Learned counsel for respondent M/s Tribhuwan Industries further submits that the CGRF in its order dated 09.06.2020 has given all findings in his favour, but, arbitrarily, without assigning any reason, has granted interest only for the period 2016 onwards. There is no reason in the entire order as to why interest for the earlier period 2005-2016 is not granted.
12. Learned counsel for respondent M/s Tribhuwan Industries further places reliance upon section 62(6) of the Electricity Act 2003 in its favour and denies the applicability of the principle of waiver claiming that he never gave any assurance that interest would not be claimed by him.
13. Considering the submissions as recorded above, what transpires is that all the three grounds raised by the petitioner before this court were also raised before the CGRF. The submission of the petitioner that without challenging the order of the executive engineer dated 19.11.2016, the claim of the respondent M/s Tribhuwan Industries would not be maintainable and that the respondent by submitting affidavit of acceptance, has waived its statutory right of interest. The CGRF in the impugned order has considered the same at length on internal paragraph page 10-12. The same reads as follows:
"The claim of interest is the statutory right. The right of interest is also provided under section 3 of Interest Act, 1978. It is further argued that the amount found refundable was illegally realized by the respondent was lying with the concerned Division and same amount which was illegally realized and unauthorizedly retained by the Respondent.
Paper No. 262 annexure 3 of the counter affidavit of Mr. Sandeep Kumar Tiwari the the Executive Engineer, is the letter dated 27.10.2016 and affidavit of Mr. Shiv Shanker Awasthi. In paragraph 6 of the said affidavit dated 27.10.2016, the following statement on oath has been given-
"यह है कि मे० त्रिभुवन इण्डस्ट्रीज लि० के विद्युत विच्छेदन के पश्चात निकलने वाली उक्त धनराशि रु० 2,62,12,690/- का समायोजन मे० यूनाइटेड स्टील इण्डस्ट्रीज के आगामी मासिक बिलों में किये जाने पर शपथी व अन्य निदेशक किसी प्रकार का न तो वाद-विवाद उत्पन्न करेंगे और न ही भविष्य में कभी उक्त धनराशि की मांग करेगें।"
In the said affidavit there is no such statement that the company has relinquished or waived its statutory right of the interest as provided in Regulation 19.2 (ii) (b) of U.P. Regulation, 2007, Section 62(6) of Electricity Act 2003, Section 34 CPC and Section 3 of Interest Act, 1978.
It was further argued by the learned counsel for the respondent that for the payment of interest the Forum is not the appropriate authority to entertain the suit/petition; the complainant may file a petition before the Competent Civil Court. We do not agree with the argument of the learned counsel for the electricity department.
Under Section 62 (6) of the Electricity Act 2003-"(6) If any licensee or a generating company recovers a price or charge exceeding the tariff determined under this section, the excess amount shall be recoverable by the person who has paid such price or charge along with interest equivalent to the bank rate without prejudice to any other liability incurred by the licensee."
Hence as contained in the above section, the person who has paid excess charges to the electricity department shall be entitled to a refund with interest equivalent to the bank rate without prejudice to any other liability incurred by the licensee.
Further, Rule 19.2 (ii) (b) of the UPERC Regulation, 2007 provides that - "(b) by the distribution licensee and he neglects to adjust money by revising bill or make payment of money within fifteen days of the order, the distribution licensee shall pay interest at the rate of sixteen percent compounded half yearly for such period during which default continues."
Hence, interest is the statutory liability of Licensee Company towards the consumers.
The jurisdiction of the Forum has been explained under Rule 5.0 of UPERC Regulation, 2007. Rule 5.2 provides that the forum has the jurisdiction to take up complaints, except those under Regulation 5.1, on an application before it or suo-moto if it considers appropriate in the interest of justice.
Section 34 CPC provides the Forum that how the interest shall be paid under section 34(1)- "(1) Where and in so far as a decree is for the payment of money, the Court may, in the decree, order interest at such rate as the Court deems reasonable to be paid on the principal sum adjudged, from the date of the suit to the date of the decree, in addition to any interest adjudged on such principal sum for any period prior to the institution of the suit."
Hence, from the perusal of the Section 34 of CPC, it is clear that for the money suit or in a civil suit a decree is prepared by the Civil Court then for the payment of the decrial amount with interest a suit shall be filed before the Civil Court.
But in the present case, the complainant is claiming the interest on the excess amount which he has already been paid to the electricity department. He is claiming the interest on that amount which is the statutory right under the provision of section 62 of the Electricity Act as well as Rule 19.2 of Regulation, 2007. Hence, Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum is the only legal Forum where the complaint/petition for recovery of interest against the licensee by the consumer may be filed."
14. In the aforesaid findings, no illegality could be pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner. Under section 62(6) of the Electricity Act 2006, as already quoted above, "the excess amount shall be recoverable by the person who has paid such price or charge along with interest equivalent to the bank rate without prejudice to any other liability incurred by the licensee." The refund of excess amount and interest thereupon is not dependent upon any order of the executive engineer. It is the right of the person from whom excess amount is charged, to recover the same along with interest, as provided in the aforesaid section and the regulations. Merely because the executive engineer by his order dated 01.08.2018 has refused to pay interest on amount already refunded, would not require the respondent M/s Tribhuwan Industries to first challenge the order of Executive Engineer and thereafter demand for interest. The right of the respondent to recover the interest is granted to him by section 62 (6) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and Regulation 19.2 (ii) (b) of UP Regulation, 2007, and the respondent has rightly exercise the said right before the CGRF, appropriate forum under the Electricity Act for the said purposes.
15. Thus, there is no illegality in the finding of the CGRF that interest is recoverable at the instance of respondent before the CGRF without any challenge to the order of the Executive Engineer.
16. Similarly, the finding of the CGRF, as already quoted above, that the respondent has not waived off his right to recover the interest could be found to be incorrect. As already quoted in the aforesaid finding, the affidavit given by the consumer only states that respondent M/s Tribhuwan Industries shall not on any later day raise any dispute or claim, with regard to the amount of Rs.2,62,12,690/- due to him being adjusted in the monthly bills of its sister concern. The CGRF has rightly found that from the said statement, it cannot be drawn that the respondent has relinquished or waived its statutory right of interest, as provided under the Electricity Act and the Regulations read with Section 30 CPC and section 3 of the Interest Act 1978.
17. This court also does not find anything in the said affidavit from which it can be said that the right to recover interest due has been waived off by the respondent M/s Tribhuwan Industries. The respondent M/s Tribhuwan Industries has merely stated that he shall not raise any dispute with regard to adjustment of the amount of Rs.2,62,12,690/- due to him, in the bills of its sister concern. Thus, the submission of the petitioner, on issue of waiver, is also rejected.
18. Now, coming to the final submission of the counsel for the petitioner with regard to liability to pay interest, the same can be divided in two parts; namely (i) liability to pay interest on amounts finally found due for period January 1997 - February 2003 and (ii) interest on the liability found due for September 2005 - October 2015.
19. As per petitioner, all claims of respondent M/s Tribhuwan Industries, as per order of Ombudsman dated 28.10.2010, are provided for in the final bill dated 25.06.2016 accepted by Executive Engineer by order dated 19.11.2016. It is claimed by the petitioner that interest is provided in the aforesaid final bill and order of Executive Engineer on the LFR and on cost of meter for the entire period i.e. from 1997 till final disconnection in 2015, as per order of Ombudsman and as provided by the Tariffs. The CGRF has found that petitioner has paid the amount charged extra but did not provide for interest on the same for the period 2005-2015.
20. To substantiate its case before this court, the petitioner has placed reliance upon two calculation sheets filed as annexure 10 to its writ petition, one for January 1997 - February 2003 and another for September 2005 - October 2015. There is no dispute between the parties with regard to calculation sheet of January 1997 - February 2003. Short dispute is only with regard to the calculation sheet of September 2005 - October 2015. As per petitioner, the interest on LFR and on cost of meter is provided for in the said chart of September 2005 - October 2015 as per order of the Ombudsman dated 28.10.2010 and tariffs applicable. The respondent M/s Tribhuwan Industries disputes the said facts and claims that though LFR is refunded along with cost of meter, but interest on the entire amount (including aforesaid) is not provided.
21. A bare perusal of the calculation sheet for September 2005 - October 2015 shows that in the same, there is a column providing details of LFR but there is no column of interest upon the same. At the end of the calculation sheet interest on cost of meter of Rs.6,17,337/- is provided along with interest of LFR from October 2001 till July 2002 of Rs. 21,74,685/- is provided. The said calculation sheet provide breakup of the refund as given in the final bill dated 25.06.2016 approved by the Executive Engineer by order dated 19.11.2016. Thus interest on the cost of meter can at best be till May 2016, month prior to final bill dated 25.06.2016. Similarly interest on amount of LFR due for October 2001 to July 2002 of Rs. 21,74,685/- is provided in the calculation sheet, which also can at best be till May 2016. Again the calculation sheet also does not provide for any interest on refund of LFR provided therein from October 2005 till September 2014.
22. Entitlement of respondent M/s Tribhuwan Industries for refund of interest on LFR is considered at length by Ombudsman in its order dated 28.10.2010 and suffice would be to quote the concluding paragraph of the same, which reads:
"In the tariff order dated 22.10.2002 Modified on 25.02.2003, the load factor rebate is admissible on monthly basis. There is only one embargo that the consumer with arrears shall not be eligible for rebate. The UPERC stated that the consumer in the HV-2 category is in arrears and has obtained an order of stay, from a court of any statutory authority amount of load factor rebate for which the consumer is eligible shall be calculated and the same shall accrue to the account of the consumer but actual credit thereof will not be given to the consumer. If the consumer succeeds in his dispute relating to his arrear, the load factor rebate, as accrued to him, for the entire period shall be paid to him with interest at the rate equal to deposit rate of the State bank of India during that period. However, the rebate shall be payable to the consumer only when the consumer has cleared the reduced amount of arrear, if any, as decided by the court/authority, in full. Similarly, clause 6.16 (a) of code, 2002 provides that if the complaint is found to be corrected, the consumer shall not be charged any late payment surcharge and shall be entitled for timely payment of rebate. In my view, the Executive Engineer has corrected the bills without adjusting the other disputes which was corrected by CGRF. The Respondents have failed to establish that the arrears claimed by them were correct and the Appellant had not paid within time. The arrears were substantially reduced and error claim is not marginal but up to the substantial part of the bills. Similarly, clause 6.16 (a) of Code, 2002 supports the submission of the Appellant that if the complaint is found to be correct, the he will not be charged any late payment surcharge and also entitled for timely payment rebate. In my view, once the dispute raised by the appellant regarding incorrectness of bills, have been found to be correct, then the MVVNL is duly bound to allow load factor rebate as per tariff order. Issue number (C) is decided in favour of appellant."
23. The aforesaid finding of Ombudsman clearly settles the position with regard to refund of LRF and entitlement of interest. The respondent was found entitled for the same along with interest. The said order of Ombudsman is final between the parties.
24. Further CGRF in its order dated 14.11.2019 has specifically considered claim of respondent of interest on LFR for the period 2005-2015.Relevant portions of the discussion and findings of the CGRF of the aforesaid order are as follows: (as the order of CGRF does not contain any paragraph numbers, internal page numbers of the order are extracted for convenience):
(Internal page 8) "We are not agreed with the arguments of the learned counsel of the opposite party. Vide order dated 19.11.2016 issued by Mr Ram Snehi, the then Executive Engineer, Amausi, LESA The claim of the company was adjusted or paid as per paragraph second sub-paragraph 1-6. In the said letter dated 19.11.2016 there is no mention of the interest. Hence, on the point of interest, the letter is silent.
The present petition has been filed before the Forum for the interest which is due on the opposite party; hence for the purposes of interest, the right of the complainant remain continue and effective towards the electricity department as a consumer."
(Internal Page 10) "As per provisions Order 2 Rule 2 CPC, the complainant is not claiming the relief under piecemeal manner. When the opposite party/Electricity department has not paid interest on the amount which was adjusted and paid to the complainant then the complainant has claimed the interest accordingly. The liability of the Interest is the statutory right as per provisions contained in Regulation 19.2 (ii) (b) of U.P. Regulation 2007, Section 62 (6) Electricity act, 2003 and Section 34 CPC.
Page 11 "Under section 62 (6) of the Electricity Act, 2003 -"(6) If any licensee or a generating company recovers a price or charge exceeding the tariff determined under this section, the excess amount shall be recoverable by the person who has paid such price or charge along with interest equivalent to the bank rate without prejudice to any other liability incurred by the licensee"
Hence as contained in the above section, the person who has paid excess charges to the electricity department shall be entitled to a refund with interest equivalent to the bank rate without prejudice to any other liability incurred by the licensee.
Further, Rule 19.2 (ii) (b) Of the UPERC Regulations, 2007 provides that - " (b) By the distribution licensee and he neglects to adjust money by revising bill or make payment of money within 15 days of the order, the distribution licensee shall pay interest the rate of sixteen percent compounded half yearly for such period during which default continues.
Hence, interest is the statutory liability of Licensee Company towards the consumers."
25. Thus, both the ombudsman and the CGRF in their separate orders have found that petitioner is liable to pay interest on the excess amount charged by it. The CGRF in its order dated 14.11.2019, as quoted above, has already found that interest for the period September 2005 till October 2015 is not paid. The claim of petitioner that interest on LFR is paid as per calculation sheets is already found incorrect by this court and is decided in favour of the respondent M/s Tribhuwan Industries.
26. Now coming to the submission of the counsel for the respondent M/s Tribhuwan Industries that the CGRF has not provided any reason in its order for awarding interest w.e.f. 19.11.2016 instead of from the date the amounts became refundable is concerned, a perusal of impugned order of CGRF shows that it has directed licensee/petitioner to pay to the respondent M/s Tribhuwan Industries on the amount Rs. 2,62,12,690/- charged extra, interest at existing bank rates w.e.f 19.11.2016 with direction to clear the same till 31.05.2020. In case of failure of petitioner to clear the same till 31.05.2020 the respondent M/s Tribhuwan Industries is found entitled to interest @16% (sixteen percent) compounded half yearly as per Rule 19.2 (ii) (b) of the UPERC Regulations, 2007. However while all the findings are given by the CGRF in favour of the respondent but no reason is provided by it for granting interest w.e.f. 19.11.2016, the date on which Executive Engineer approved the final bill. By providing the said date the respondent is denied interest, entitled to him, from the date the same became due for refund.
27. As is already found above that the respondent M/s Tribhuwan Industries is not provided interest in the final bill, which he was entitled to, there can be no reason to deny the same to him, from the date the amounts became due for refund. The order of CGRF to the extent it fixes 19.11.2016 for grant of interest without assigning any reasons cannot stand and is set aside to the said extent. It is directed that the petitioner shall calculate the interest from the date the amounts became refundable to the respondent M/s Tribhuwan Industries at the relevant bank rates applicable from time to time and pay the same positively by 31.07.2025. In case it fails to comply with the aforesaid direction by 31.07.2025, the respondent M/s Tribhuwan Industries shall be entitled to interest @16% (sixteen percent) compounded half yearly as per Rule 19.2 (ii)(b) of the UPERC Regulations, 2007.
28. With the said observations, both the writ petitions stand disposed off.
Order Date :- 23.05.2025 VNP/-
[ Pankaj Bhatia, J ]