Chhattisgarh Electricity Board vs Suryakanta Gupta

THIS appeal, under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, arises from order dated 30.5.2005 in Complaint No. 13/2001 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rajnandgaon (hereinafter called ''District Forum'' for short), directing the appellant/Electricity Board to pay to the complainant Rs. 43,254, as also interest on the security deposit amount not adjusted in the bills as per the circular dated 18.11.96.

INDISPUTABLY , the complainant/respondent is an H.T. Consumer of the appellant/Electricity Board and had deposited Rs. 25,99,291 towards security deposit. The complainants grievance in substance was, that as per circular dated 18.11.1996 of the appellant/Electricity Board, the amount of security deposit of a consumer was liable to be reviewed half yearly in the months of January and July each year, and if it was found on such review, that amount of security deposit exceeds 20% of the average bill for the preceding six months then excess amount was liable to be adjusted from the next monthly bill of the consumer. It was alleged that as the average of the complainants monthly bill amounted to Rs. 13,42,270, therefore, after adding 20% to the said amount it works out to Rs. 16,10,724. Accordingly, Rs. 9,88,567 were liable to be adjusted from the bill of the next month i.e. the bill for the month of July 1999. It was further averred that though the complainant wrote letters to the appellant/Electricity Board for adjustment of the above amount but his request as above was not accepted till November, 1999. It was further alleged that the surplus amount was subsequently adjusted from the bills payable in the month of November 1999 to April 2000. The complainant felt aggrieved by the non -adjustment of surplus amount from the bill payable for the month of July, 1999. The complainant prayed that compensation be awarded for deficiency as above. The defence in substance of appellant/Electricity Board was that since the sanction for adjustment of the surplus security deposit amount was received from Chief Engineer belatedly in October, 1999, the adjustment as above was given thereafter, in instalments, from the bills payable by the complainant from November, 1999. It was also alleged that in fact the surplus amount for which the complainant was entitled to adjustment worked to Rs. 9,45,213 and not Rs. 9,88,567 as alleged by the complainant. It was, therefore, averred that, there was no deficiency in service, and complaint deserved to be dismissed.

DISTRICT Forum in impugned order upheld the contentions of the complainant and held that in view of circular dated 18.11.1996 of the appellant/Electricity Board, he was entitled to get the benefit of adjustment of surplus of security deposit amount, from the bill of the next month i.e. from the bill payable for the electricity consumed for the month of July, 1999. It was further held that the complainant was entitled to adjustment in the above manner, for an amount of Rs. 9,88,567 as was contended on behalf of complainant and not of Rs. 9,45,213 as contended by the appellant/Electricity Board. Therefore, besides directing refund of difference of Rs. 43,354, it was further directed that the complainant is also entitled to get interest for the period of delay due to non -adjustment of the above amount from the bill payable for the month of July, 1999.

WE have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record as also the impugned order. The main questions that arise for consideration are as to whether appellant/Electricity Board committed deficiency in service by not giving adjustment of the security deposit amount as per their circular dated 18.11.1996 and as to whether the complainant was entitled to refund of Rs. 43,354?

IT is not in dispute that as per circular dated 18.11.1996 of the appellant/Electricity Board, review regarding security deposit was required to be made half yearly. The relevant clause of circular reads: ''Where consequent upon six monthly review of the security deposit, amount of security held is found in excess of 20% of amount required to be deposited by consumer, same shall be adjusted by giving the credit in next monthly bill of the consumer. For this especially order shall be passed by SE (O & M) incharge of the area in respect of L.T. consumers and by ED/CE of the region in respect of H.T. consumers. Copy of the order issued may, however, be endorsed to this office in respect of H.T. consumers.''

IT is, therefore, clear that the complainant was entitled to adjustment in the security deposit from the monthly bill payable by him as per the terms of circular. As noticed by the District Forum in para 17 of the impugned order that the amount liable to be retained after calculating 150% of average bill for the preceding six months and 20% above, thereto would work out to Rs. 16,10,724. Indisputably, the complainant had already deposited Rs. 25,99,291 as security deposit with the appellant/Electricity Board. Hence, appellant was liable to give adjustment of Rs. 9,88,567, being the difference of the above amount as per terms of the circular dated 18.11.1996. Therefore, total adjustment given to the extent of Rs. 9,45,213 from the bills payable by the complainant from November 1999 to April 2000 fell short by Rs. 43,354. The District Forum was, therefore, fully justified in directing refund of the said amount of Rs. 43,354 to the complainant/respondent. Now, coming to the next question as to whether appellant/Electricity Board was justified in giving adjustment of the excess security deposit in installments, from the bills payable from November 1999 to April 2000?

AS would be clear from the terms of the circular dated 18.11.1996 quoted above, the appellant/Electricity Board was liable to adjust the excess amount of security deposit from the next monthly bill. It may also be observed in the above context that, if there was delay by the appellants in obtaining sanction from CE, the same would not constitute a valid defence for appellant/Electricity Board. It would indicate laches and lack of alertness on their part, which resulted in non -compliance of the terms of their circular dated 18.11.1996. This clearly amounts to deficiency in service by the appellant/Electricity Board as has been rightly held by the District Forum. Therefore, District Forum was justified in awarding compensation for delayed adjustment of the surplus security deposit amount which resulted in violation of terms of circular dated 18.11.1996. The impugned order, therefore, seems to be unassailable.

THIS appeal has no substance. It is accordingly dismissed. The impugned order is affirmed. The appellant shall bear its own cost of this appeal and shall pay that of the complainant/respondent, which is quantified at Rs. 2,000 (two thousand) only. Appeal dismissed.