CHHATTISGARH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD vs Chhamanidhi Patel

1.THIS appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 22.1.2003 in Complaint No. 493/2002 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (hereinafter called the District Forum for short) directing that the complainant/respondent shall be entitled to complete exemption from payment of electric charges of motor pump installed in his premises for the period from November, 1999 to April, 2001 and that from 1.5.2001 the complainant would be charged electricity charges for 5 HP motor.

INDISPUTABLY the complainant has agricultural field at gram Runjhini and had installed a 10 HP pump in his field since 1991. However, in 1999 he applied to the appellant Electricity Board for reduction in power supply from 10 HP to 5 HP pump, by application dated 8.4.1999 addressed to Executive Engineer of the appellant Board. According to the averments of the complainant/respondent, permission sought by him was granted by E.E. on 5.10.1999. The complainant further averred that thereafter 5 HP pump was installed by him in his field and an agreement to that effect was executed between the parties. However, even thereafter the appellant Board continued to demand further documents till February, 2001. It was also averred that the complainant is being continuously sent bill for 10 HP. It was also averred that in view of exemption granted by State Government, he was not liable for electricity charges for the said 5 HP pump, till April, 2001. He, therefore, claimed that he be granted exemption from paying payment of electricity charges from Nov. 99 to April 2001; and that thereafter electricity charges for 5 HP pump be realized from him.

THE complaint was resisted by the appellant Board. According to them, the Executive Engineer was not authorised to sanction reduction of HP in the pump. The said power could be exercised only by Chief Engineer. The complainant was asked to submit documents and to complete formalities regarding his application for reduction of HP of his pump, which he completed only in Feb. 2002 and thereafter a new agreement dated 18.10.2002 has been executed between the parties. It was further averred that complete exemption could be only granted in case of one pump in a Khata of agricultural land. Since the complainants brother Juglal had already been granted exemption, the complainant was not entitled to any exemption for the pump installed in the field comprising in the said Khata.

DISTRICT Forum in the impugned order allowed the complaint and directed that complainant would be given exemption from paying electricity charges for the period from Nov. 99 to April 2001 and that from 1.5.2001 electricity charges for 5 HP pump only will be charged from him. Learned Counsel for the parties heard and record perused.

IT may be noticed that the copy of the Khata of land has been placed on record; which shows that the land was held by several owners and Juglal brother of the complainant was also one of the co -owner. It was averred by the appellant Board that the said Juglal has already availed of the facilities of 5 HP pump, therefore, the complainant was not entitled to any exemption for another pump installed by him. Though it was submitted on behalf of the complainant/respondent that there was partition between him and his brother Juglal, however, no documents in regard to the alleged partition have been placed on record by him. Had there been partition, between the complainant and other co -owners Khata should have been separated and the land should have been separately recorded in the name of the complainant. That does not appear to have been done. Copies of the revenue record in that regard have not been placed on record. Therefore, the contention of the complainant/respondent that as there was partition between him and other co -owners; he was entitled to exemption from payment of electricity of 5 HP pump cannot be accepted.

IT may also be noticed that the complainant averred that he had installed the pump in November, 1999. However, no material has been placed on record to show that he actually installed the 5 HP pump in his field. In fact a receipt from one Ganesh Motors, purporting to be for purchase of 5 HP pump has been filed; but it is noticed that the said receipt is dated 15.9.1999 i.e., prior to alleged date of agreement with the Appellant Board. Moreover, no documents have been placed on record to show that the said pump was actually purchased by him. In fact, the complainants notice dated 1.8.2002 also does not mention that the complainant had actually installed 5 HP pump in his field in the month of November, 1999 as has been averred by him. Thus, it is not satisfactorily established that the complainant installed 5 HP pump in his field in November, 1999. It may also be noticed that copy of the agreement filed on record between the parties appears to have executed on 18.10.2002, though there appears to be some change in the date of the said agreement. It also appears that the complainant was continuously asked to submit documents and that he was ultimately granted permission to instal 5 HP pump in the year 2002 by Chief Engineer as would be clear from the appellants letter dated 27.4.2002. -Annexure. 10.

FROM the above material on record, and circumstances of the case, it appears that the complainant was not entitled to exemption from payment of electricity charges for the 5 HP pump, installed in his field as his brother has already availed of the said facility. It appears that the complainant was ultimately granted due permission in April, 2002 by the Chief Engineer for installation of 5 HP pump and agreement was executed between the parties to that effect on 18.10.2002. Therefore, the complainant could not be granted exemption from payment of electricity charges, as admittedly exemption was granted till the month of April 2001 whereafter it was withdrawn. The complainant, therefore, would be liable to pay charges for 5 HP pump only from 18.10.2002 and not from 1.4.2001 as has been directed by the District Forum.

ACCORDINGLY , the appeal is partly allowed and instead of the impugned order, it is directed that respondent shall be charged bill for electricity charges for 5 HP pump from the date of agreement i.e., 18.10.2002 and his prayer for grant of exemption from payment of electricity charges from November 1999 to April 2001 is disallowed. In the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own cost of this litigation including this appeal and the complaint. The complainant shall however be free to avail of such other legal remedy, as may be available to him.