AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Since 13.9.2016 had been declared as holiday on account of Eid in lieu of 12.9.2016, this case is being taken up today. IA/4963/2015
For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in filing the Revision Petition is condoned. The application stands disposed of accordingly. REVISION PETITION
Challenge in this Revision Petition, by the U.P. Power Corporation Ltd., Bareilly, is to the order dated 10.2.2015, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.P. at Lucknow (for short "the State Commission") in Appeal No.1159/2003. By the said order, the State Commission has affirmed the order dated 18.5.2002 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum I, Bareilly (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint No.373/91. By the said order, the District Forum had directed the Petitioner herein to refund to the Respondent, namely, Sindhi Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd. (for short "the Samiti"), an amount of 92,080/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 9.1.1990 till the date of actual refund.
The occasion to file the Complaint by the said Samiti arose because of the recovery of the afore-stated additional amount by the Petitioner in terms of its letter dated 18.12.1989, as a pre-condition for energization of a 63 KVA capacity transformer. The grievance of the Samiti was that since they had already deposited the entire amount towards the cost of setting up of a transformer with capacity of 63 KVA, there was no basis for raising the said demand. The stand of the Petitioner, on the contrary, was that the said demand had been raised on account of additional load demanded by the Samiti over and in excess of 63 KVA, in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 25.11.1987. The said Memorandum stipulated that in case the load of the Samiti increases beyond 63 KVA, the cost for increase in the capacity shall be borne by the Samiti.
Taking into consideration the documents placed on record by both the parties, in support of the rival stands, in particular the letter dated 9.1.1990, addressed by the Samiti to the Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, Bareilly, wherein the Samiti had requested the Petitioner to furnish information about the provisions of the U.P. Electricity Act, 1910, under which they were being made liable to pay the said amount, the District Forum arrived at the conclusion that the demand of the said amount was illegal. While affirming the said finding, the State Commission has held that the Samiti was not liable to pay the said amount, observing thus : "As far as the Appeal is concerned, the complainant got deposited 92,080 under protest for the transformer with the electricity department. The electricity department has not been able to give any satisfactory reasons for getting deposited the same amount with it before the District Forum. At the stage of Appeal, copy of the order dated 14.9.1992 passed in Appeal No.403 of 1991 and Appeal No.417 of 1991 by this State Commission has been filed, which his between these parties and the said Appeals are also related to the issue of refund of the money deposited for transformers. The State Commission found that no amount can be deposited for the purpose of transformer and therefore directed to refund the amount deposited."
Hence, the present Revision Petition.
On 20.7.2016, when the case had come up for consideration, we had directed the Petitioner to produce the original record wherein the Samiti''s request for release of electricity connection was dealt with, containing the estimates prepared by the Chief Zonal Engineer, determining the cost of the transformers, which was sought to be recovered from the Samiti.
In deference to the said order, Mr.Nandlal, Executive Engineer of the Petitioner Distribution Division, is present along with some documents. However, on repeated questioning, he has not been able to show any document, indicating the basis on which the said demand was raised for the alleged enhancement in load. As a matter of fact, it is candidly admitted that no such document is available on the file of the Petitioner Department. It is, however, reiterated by learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner that the said demand was for enhancement of the load by 11.4 KVA.
Since the Petitioner has failed to adduce any evidence, documentary or oral, in support of its afore-noted demand, even up to this stage, we are unable to hold that the impugned order suffers from jurisdictional error, warranting our interference in the Revisional jurisdiction. However, having regard to the peculiar circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the award of interest in favour of the Samiti on the said amount is not justified.
Consequently, the Revision Petition is partly allowed and while maintaining the direction with regard to the refund of the afore-noted amount, it is directed that the Petitioner shall not be liable to pay interest, as directed by the lower fora, if the principal amount is refunded to the Samiti within four weeks from today.
The Revision Petition stands disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs.