Back
HARYANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
R.C. Kathuria, President and Shakuntla Yadav, Member
HARISH KUMAR AND ORS. - Appellants
Versus
H.V.B.P.N. LTD. AND ANR. - Respondents
First Appeal No. 2266 of 2003
Decided on : 06-02-2008
Mr. B.S. Rathee, proxy for Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocates, for the Appellant; None., for the Respondent
The court emphasized the authority of the opposite parties to set tariff under Section 49 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948, and the limited jurisdiction of the District Forum in interfering with the tariff policy.
Headnote:
Electricity Tariff - Discriminatory Billing - Section 49 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 - Sales Circular Nos. 14/98, 15/98, 70/2001
Fact of the Case:
The complainants installed tubewells and were billed at a higher rate compared to residents of another village. They sought direction to charge electricity bills at a lower rate and refund excess amount.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainants were billed based on the average depth of their tubewells as per the Sales Circulars, and the opposite parties were entitled to set the tariff under Section 49 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948. The District Forum's dismissal of the complaint was upheld.
Issues: Discriminatory billing, jurisdiction of the District Forum
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the opposite parties were entitled to set the tariff under Section 49 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948, and the District Forum had no jurisdiction to interfere with the tariff policy determined and issued under these provisions.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed.
ORDER
R.C. Kathuria, President - Against the order of dismissal of the complaint, dated 18.8.2003 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal the appellants-complainants have come up in appeal.
2. Put shortly, the facts as can be gathered from the record briefly stated are that the complainants are residents of Village Faiz Ali Pur Majra, Tehsil Gharaunda, and District Karnal. The complainant Nos. 1 to 4 have installed tubewells operated with 7.5 BHP motors while Hari Krishan complainant No. 5 had installed tubewell operated with 5 BHP motor and all of them had been paying the electricity bills received regularly. The water level of all these tubewells was 205 ft. The opposite parties had started issuing electricity bills at the flat rate of Rs. 104 per H.P. per month while the other persons who are residents of Village Chaura, Tehsil Gharaunda, District Karnal, detailed in para No.4 of the complaint had been sent electricity bills @ Rs.78 per H.P. per month. Terming the demand made in the bills received by the complainant as discriminatory and arbitrary, the complainant invoked the jurisdiction of the District Forum seeking directions to the opposite parties to charge the electricity consumption bills @ Rs.78 per H.P. per month and refund the excess amount deposited by them. In addition, they claimed Rs. 10, 000 as damages for deficiency of service. The complaint was contested by the opposite parties. In the written statement filed it was pleaded that in exercise of the powers conferred upon the opposite parties as per instructions contained in Sales Circular Nos. 14/98 and 15/98, the persons having pumping sets of depth of more than 100 ft. of their tubewells and above had been allowed concessional tarrif by treating the block as one unit for the purpose of calculation of the average depth of the tubewell on the basis of data supplied by the State Agriculture Department. It was further stated that the matter was thereafter re-examined on 21.1.1999 whereby it was decided that average depth for the purpose of concessional tariff should be based on Patwar Circle of the unit as per survey of the Department of Agriculture. Accordingly, survey was again conducted by the Department of Agriculture and the average depth of the tubewell in various Patwar Circles was found to be in between 101 ft. to 150 ft. It was further submitted that tubewells of the persons named in para No. 4 of the complaint are located in Village Chaura which falls under Kalram Patwar Circle which is on 0 to 100 depth and are being billed at the rate of Rs. 78 per BHP. Accordingly, it was prayed that the complaint merited dismissal. Taking into consideration the above stated stands of the parties and evidence adduced on record the District Forum dismissed the complaint as per order dated 18.8.2003. Hence, the present appeal.
3. Learned Counsel representing the appellant-complainant has been heard at length. None has chosen to appear to argue the matter on behalf of the respondents opposite parties.
4. Learned Counsel representing the appellant-complainants while seeking reversal of the order of the District Forum mainly contended that the District Forum had totally ignored that the village of the appellant-complainants fall under the Patwar Circle of Chaura whereas earlier their village was covered in Patwar Circlel Sadarpur-II, and as the Patwar Circle of Chaura has been charged @ Rs.78 per BHP, the act of the opposite parties issuing the bills to the complainants charging electricity consumption @ Rs.104 per BHP was illegal and discriminatory and for that reason the order of the District Forum deserved to be set aside. There is hardly any merit in the submissions made. The factual position has been clarified in Sales Circular No.14/98 Ex. O5. The District Forum has taken notice of the contents of the Sales Circular and has observed in para No. 4 of the order as under:
"Ex. O5 is the copy of Sales Circular 14/98. As per this Sales Circular, OP
