Back
CHHATTISGARH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RAIPUR
Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Agarwal, President;
Mrs. Veena Misra & Mr. R.S. Awasthi, Members
LALCHAND AGARWAL—Appellant
versus
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, CITY DIVISION WEST/M.P.E.B.—Respondent
Appeal Nos. 575 & 591 of 2004—Decided on 28.2.2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. R.K. Bhawnani, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. K. Anandani, Advocate.
The court emphasized that a demand based solely on an audit report is not justified and cannot be permitted. It also highlighted that the circular's provision for prospective change in tariff did not justify retrospective application.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Electricity Tariff Dispute - Circular No. 908 of the M.P.E.B - [1986, Section 15] - The court discussed the dispute arising from the demand of additional electricity bill based on a change from industrial to commercial tariff. The court highlighted the circular's provision for prospective change in tariff and emphasized that retrospective application was not justified. The court also emphasized that a demand based solely on an audit report is not justified and cannot be permitted.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant, a proprietor of a small-scale industries unit, obtained an electric service connection from the respondent Electricity Board. A dispute arose when the Electricity Board demanded an additional bill for electricity consumed, claiming that the complainant's service connection was required to be charged as per commercial tariff and not as per industrial tariff.
Finding of the Court:
The District Forum observed that the agreement for supply of electricity was as per industrial tariff and that the Electricity Board had not been able to justify the demand for the additional bill. The court allowed the complainant's prayer to quash the bill and directed the Electricity Board to approach the Review Committee for resolving the dispute regarding the additional bill.
Issues: The main issue was whether the demand for an additional bill for electricity consumed, based on a change from industrial to commercial tariff, was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the demand based solely on an audit report is not justified and cannot be permitted. It emphasized that the circular's provision for prospective change in tariff did not justify retrospective application.
Final Decision: Appeal No. 575/2004 of the complainant was allowed, and the bill of Rs. 1,07,747 was quashed. Consequently, Appeal No. 591/2004 of the O.P. Electricity Board was dismissed.
Mr. Justice V.K. Agarwal, President—Both these appeals under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are directed against the same order dated 16.11.2004 in Complaint No. 137/2004 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (hereinafter called “District Forum” for short), hence they are being disposed of by this common order.
2. Indisputably, the complainant Lalchand Agarwal is the proprietor of Small Scale Industries Unit registered in the name and style of “Sanyog Offset Private Ltd.,” Samta Colony, Raipur since 10.4.1990. He obtained electric service connection from the respondent in that year to run the said unit. He was admittedly being billed as per industrial tariff, by the opposite party Electricity Board (CSEB). The dispute arose as the Electricity Board demanded additional bill of Rs. 1,07,747 by letter dated 4.9.2000 relating to the electricity consumed by the aforementioned unit of the complainant, during the period 1998-2000. It was stated in the said letter and the correspondence which followed thereafter, that the complainant’s service connection as per audit report was required to be charged, as per commercial tariff and not as per industrial tariff. Hence, the difference of amount of the said period as above was being demanded. It appears that other letters were also issued by the respondent Electricity Board, from time to time, towards recovery of the said amount from the complainant. The complainant protested against the said recovery. After serving legal notice, to the respondent, the complainant approached the District Forum praying that the said demand of Rs. 1,07,747, raised by letter dated 17.8.2000 be quashed, and compensation be awarded.
3. The complaint was resisted by the Electricity Board. It was averred by it, that as per Circular No. 908 dated 11.3.1991, the complainant was required to pay electricity charges as per commercial tariff. Hence the demand as above was justified. There was no deficiency in service by the Electricity Board and the complainant was not entitled to get the relief sought by him.
4. The District Forum in the impugned order observed that the agreement for supply of electricity was as per industrial tariff. It was further observed that the Electricity Board has not been able to justify the demand of additional bill for the electricity consumed for the period from April, 98 to June, 2000. It was also observed by the District Forum that the Electricity Board is free to enter into a fresh agreement with the complainant if it wants to charge the latter; electricity charges as per commercial tariff. However, the prayer of the complainant to quash the bill was not allowed and instead it was directed that O.P. Electricity Board should approach the Review Committee for resolving the dispute regarding the additional bill as above, and it was further directed the recovery of the said bill would remain suspended till the decision of the review committee.
5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The salient features of the complainant, which are, not in dispute are, that the O.P. Electricity Board had got executed from the complainant, an agreement for charging industrial tariff, some time in the year 1990. The demand as per letter dated 4.9.2000 for payment of additional bill was issued on the basis of audit report. It also appears that the stand of the Electricity Board was that the complainant was liable to pay the electricity charges as per commercial tariff, instead of industrial tariff as per their Circular No. 908 date 11.3.1991, copy of which has been placed on record of this appeal. Before proceeding further, it would be useful to quote the relevant portion of the said circular, which was issued by Chief Engineer (Commercial) of the M.P.E.B. and was addressed to the Chief Engineer, M.P.E.B. The relevant portion reads:
“Sub : Change in Tariff from “Commercial” to “Industrial”.
Kindly refer to your letter No. 051-01-SKV/10150
