IMPORTANT POINT
Electricity consumers must be sincere in payment of bills.

Per Dr P D Shenoy —

This revision petition is filed against the interim orders passed by the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla. The case of the complainant Shri Vivek Bhalla, in brief is that he is the managing partner of the firm M/ s Deluxe Enterprises manufacturing cotton yarn. According to him, he has established this firm for providing RP No. 3647 of 2009 him self-employment and to avail incentive promised for the entrepreneurs by the State Government for establishing an industry in the State. He is providing employment for more than 100 persons. A fire accident on the intervening night of 29 and 30th September 2005, it adversely affected the financial health of the firm. It is the allegation of the complainant that the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board (in short the ‘Board’) started billing the complainant for the electricity charged against the well laid norms. The complainant was aggrieved by the alleged arbitrary billing by the Board between the period January 2002 to March 2007. Accordingly, he filed 47 complaints against the bills so arbitrarily raised.

2. It is the case of the complainant that, the Board defied the orders of the Ombudsman and harassed the complainant by not issuing the revised bills and by illegally disconnecting the electricity of his unit. Therefore, the complainant filed a complaint before the State.

3. Commission Registered as OC No.7 of 2007.It is the case of the complainant that in 1999 he paid to the Board an advance consumption deposit (ACD) to the tune of Rs.5,31,181/- and also gave a bank guarantee of Rs.8,14,500/- for period from November 2001 to March 2007. The Board raised electricity bills to the tune of Rs.2,00,68,464 as per the following details: RP No. 3647 of 2009 On account of meter reading On account of contract demand charges Rs.1,41,17,691 Rs. 59,50,773/- and sundry charges. The complainant claims to have paid Rs.1 ,41,17,691, but not the disputed the bill for Rs.59,50,773. Accordingly, he lodged 47 complaints before the Board against the alleged illegal and arbitrary 47 bills for Rs.59,50,773/- after depositing 50% of the disputed amount. During the pendency of the complaint, the Board disconnected the electricity on 29.06.2007. Therefore, he approached the State Commission. The relevant portion of the order of the State Commission dated 06.07.2007 reads as follows:

“At this stage Shri Malhotra, learned Counsel for the complainant stated that because of the electricity supply having been stopped to the complainant’s unit its production has come to a grinding halt. Further, according to him, there is dispute between the parties regarding demand raised against the complainant, part of which has already been deposited and the matter is being looked into by the Board authorities. He however stated that with a view to allow his client to run the unit, the matter being of urgent nature, by way of interim relief the opposite parties may be directed to restore the electricity connection of the complainant which according to him has been illegally disconnected. Subject to opposite side being heard in MA No. 827 of 2007, it is ordered that in the event of complainant depositing a sum of Rs.1 0, 00, 000/ - by or before 17.07.2007, opposite parties shall restore the electricity connection as an interim measure. It is clarified that the electricity connection will be restored forth with but if this amount is not deposited before the date fixed i.e. 17.07.2007, opposite parties shall be entitled to again disconnect the same. It is further, clarified that so far current electricity bills for the consumption of electricity in the complainants unit are concerned, those shall be deposited by the complainant as and when those are raised by the opposite parties and this order will not come in the way of opposite parties of those being note paid as and when such bills are raised henceforth...”

The complainant deposited Rs.10 lakh in compliance of th