AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THE complainant is a housing co-operative society who has filed the complaint for recovery of alleged excess bills paid by it to the Opponent No. 1, the Ahmedabad Electricity Company. THE Opponent No. 2 is the Account Officer of Opponent No. 1 and Opponent No. 3 is the Collector, Electricity Duty. THE grievance of the complainant society is that since 1978 possession of the respective residential premises has been taken and the Electricity Company is taking the charges for the residential buildings according to the residential rates applicable but so far the electric motor and common passage lights are concerned, for which the consumer number is 719 and 368787, the Company is still charging them at commercial rates and according to the information available to the society, the Opponent No. 1 has charged about Rs. 5 lakhs in excess of the regular bills. THE complainant society has not given any particulars regarding the excess payment made in each monthly/bi-monthly bills and there is no basis to calculate the actual amount paid by the society and Mr. K.P. Rav the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the society fairly stated that the society has not kept the old bills except few bills and is not in a position to give proper particulars so as to arrive at the correct figures. Again, the complainant society is also not clear as to which rate was applicable at the relevant time and which rate has actually been recovered and what is the actual difference. THE complaint is, therefore, without any particulars even with respect to cause of action and as it appears from the complaint that such a payment has been made right from 1978 to 1988 i.e., prior to three years before filing of the complaint.
WE understand the difficulty of Mr. Rav and Mr. Rav states that if some time is given he will be able, to furnish the figures. But there also our difficulty is that, we under the rules, are required to give decision within 90 days and this matter has been adjourned 4 times. The Electricity Company has filed its written statement in which alongwith other contentions it has also raised the contention that the complaint is barred by limitation being filed after 3 years. Mr. H.B. Shah, the learned advocate, appearing on behalf of the Electricity Company, under instructions of his client present in the Court states that the Company has applied L.T.P. rates to the motor pump installation and the rate charged is in accordance with the existing tariffs from time to time. According to Mr. Shah whether the pump is used for residential or commercial purpose will not make any difference. The rate depends upon the installation of H.P. because the charges are levied on the basis of H.P. plus fixed charges which the consumer is supposed to pay whether the same is used for domestic purpose, or for commercial purpose. Therefore even on merits, according to Mr. Shah, there is no case made out by the complainant. We are constrained to say that considering the nebulous complaint which is without particulars, Mr. Rav is not able to pin-point whether the rates charged for the motor were higher or not. But he relies upon the rates changed for the common lights etc. which to our opinion will never come to such a fantastic amount. One bill shown to us is for Rs. 106/- only.
In any view of the matter, it is not possible to decide this complaint on the facts stated therein. We, therefore, do not enter into the merits of the complaint and dismiss the same. If the complainant is dissatisfied, he can file a fresh complaint with full particulars and the decision of this complaint will not be treated as a decision on merits. ORDER The complaint is dismissed without entering into the merits since it does not disclose proper cause of action. In the circumstances there will be order as to costs. Complaint dismissed.