AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
AGGRIEVED by the order of the District Forum, Hyderabad in CD 1723/93, whereby it directed the Opposite Parties to pay to the consumers a sum of Rs. 1,67,626/- with interest at 12% p.a. from 1.2.1990 to 18.11.1993 and costs of Rs. 1000/- and to recover the said amount from the officers who are responsible for such abnormal delay in the refund of the deposits, the Opposite Parties preferred this appeal.
THE case of the flat owners and builders represented by Dilsukhnagar Consumers Council is that they deposited a sum of Rs. 1,79,000/- towards the voluntary loan contribution which is to carry interest at 6% p.a. and refundable after a period of five years and also a further sum of Rs. 6450/- towards service connection charges, as a condition precedent for supply of electric energy to the flat owners of the residential complex known as Vaibhav Apartments. Each of the flat owners paid a sum of Rs. 7,500/- towards voluntary contribution amount in a sum of Rs. 1,79,000/- which was deposited by the builder on 18.7.94 by way of Demand Draft which was received by the Opposite Parties on 26.7.84 as evidenced by Ex. Al. THE Electricity Board paid interest till December, 1988, but stopped payment from 1.1.1989. THE flat owners and builders represented on 29.12.1989 under Ex.A4 requesting the Opposite Party No. 1 to refund the loan contribution amount and enclosed alongwith the letter, the original receipt Ex. A 1. THEreupon the Opposite Party No. 1 sent a memo dated 4.1.1990 Ex. A 5 to the Opposite Party No. 2 with a copy marked to the builder informing the Opposite Party No. 2 that the amount received under voluntary contribution scheme has to be refunded after maturity, after ascertaining whether the contributors owe any amounts to the Board towards the CC charges, additional consumption deposit/additional charges and requested the Opposite Party No. 2 to furnish no due certificate or indicate the dues if any for adjusting from out of the deposit amount and to refund the balance. But the Opposite Party No. 2 did not send any reply. THE builder by letter dated 1.2.1990, Ex. A6 remained the Opposite Party No. 1 to expedite the refund and further reminders were sent on 2.4.90 and 10.8.1990(Exs.A7 and A8). THE builder also addressed a letter dated 10.12.90 (Ex. A9) to the Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, APSEB Mint Compound, Hyderabad stating that the arrears were cleared up against all the 26 metres upto the end of October, 1990 and there was no reason for delaying the refund of the voluntary contribution amount and requested the Superintending Engineer to expedite the refund. Copies of the letters were marked to the Opposite Parties also. THE Superintending Engineer sent a reply on 16.1.1991 (Ex. Al) to the builder advising his to contact Assistant Accounts Officer, Electricity Revenue Officer II for settlement of current consumption dues. THE builder contacted Assistant Accounts Officer, Electricity Revenue Office II and told that the consumption dues have to be paid by 26 flat owners and unless the dues were paid, no due certificate would not be issued. THEreupon the consumers cleared the consumption charges as indicated by the Assistant Accounts Officer and on 25.11.1991 submitted joint representation to the Superintending Engineer by which they brought all the facts and requested for refund of the amount. Two years later, the Opposite Party No. 1 addressed a memo dated 8.10.92 (Ex. A12) to the Opposite Party No. 2 with a copy thereof to the builder inviting his attention to the letter dated 4.1.1990 and requested the Opposite Party No. 2 to furnish a no due certificate or to indicate the dues for adjustment from out of the amount refunded. But the Opposite Party No. 2 has not responded to the memo at all. Alleging that there is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties, the above complaint was filed to direct the refund of the deposit amount with interest at 6% p.a. from 1.1.89 to 17.1.89, and 18% p.a. from 18.1.1989 till payment and compensation etc.
The Opposite Parties filed a counter mainly contending that the Board officials had taken steps since 1990 in order to find out what would be the exact amount payable to the consumers and also informed the said builder regarding the production of no due certificate with respect of all the service connections in the residential complex. There were current consumption dues payable by many of the flat owners from 1990 and since the flat owners and the builder failed to produce no due certificate in the concerned Electricity Revenue Office, the amount was not directed to be refunded. However the Assistant Accounts Officer submitted no due certificate in respect of the consumers who have paid the current consumption charges in full and the amounts due in respect of some consumers who had not paid till the year 1992. The delay if any is caused due to the default committed by some of the consumers in payment of the current consumption charges and failing to produce no due certificates to the Opposite Party No. 1. It was also pleaded that the exact amount refundable to the flat owners could not be arrived at immediately due to internal correspondence and administrative reasons and hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties.
THE Assistant Accounts Officer gave the details of current consumption charges due by the consumers as the current consumption charges adjusted in the VLC i.e. Rs. 11,374.20, the balance amount refunded after adjustment vide challan No. 735092 dated 18.11.93 i.e. Rs. 1,63,620/- and the amount of interest from 1.1.89 to 26.7.89 vide challan No. 735092 dated 19.11.93 Rs. 4667/- in all a sum of Rs. 1,83,667.20 p. After receipt of the certificate, the Assistant Accounts Officer deducted the balance and since the Board has paid interest for five years from 26.7.84 till the date of maturity, subsequent interest need not be paid and the complaint also is barred by limitation. The District Forum found that the Opposite Parties issued a receipt for the deposit on 26.7.84 and it matured for payment on 26.7.89 i.e. after five years. The builder addressed a letter on 29.12.1989 to the Opposite Party No. 1 to refund the said deposit and also send the original receipt. The Opposite Party No. 1 sent a memo on 4.1.1990 to the Opposite Party No. 2 to furnish the no due certificate or if there are any dues to indicate the same. There was no whisper in the memo that the builder or other consumers have to obtain no due certificate from the concerned officer of the Board and to submit the same to the Opposite Party No. 1. It was only the Opposite Party No. 2 that was directed to issue no due certificate and sent it Opposite Party No. 1. If there are any arrears payable by some of the consumers, the Opposite Party No. 2 would have immediately indicated the dues payable and the Opposite Party No. 1 could have adjusted the amount from out of the deposit amount. But instead of adjusting the dues, if any, payable in January, 1990, the Opposite Party No. 2 kept quiet and retained the amount of Rs. 1,79,000/- nearly for a period of 4 years and 4 months even after maturity. Hence the District Forum found that there is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties.
IT further held that the complaint is not barred by limitation as the Opposite Parties never refused either expressly or impliedly to refund the deposit amount. IT, therefore, allowed the complaint in part as mentioned earlier. In this appeal, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants that there is no delay constituting any deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties. We are not inclined to agree with this contention. The correspondence between the parties clearly shows that the deposit amount became matured on 18.7.89. The builder wrote a letter on 29.12.1989 requesting for refund of the amount. The first Opposite Party informed the second Opposite Party as early as on 4.1.1990 to issue a no due certificate and if there are any dues payable by any of the flat owners to indicate the dues payable by them and furnish the no due certificate after adjusting the dues. But the Opposite Party No. 2 did not send any reply and it was only some time in the year 1992 it was stated that some amounts of the flat owners were due and payable, even though the amounts were cleared by the consumers and a joint representation was made on 25.11.1991 bringing all the facts to the notice of the Superintending Engineer. We are satisfied that in the year 1990 itself when a letter was received from the first Opposite Party, the second Opposite Party should have ascertained the amounts due and payable if any towards the consumption charges by the flat owners and issue a no due certificate and refund the balance of the amount, even if they are due. We are, therefore, satisfied that the District Forum rightly held that there is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties as they failed to refund the amount to the consumers after a period of 4 years and 4 months.
APART from there being no merits, there is a delay of 188 days in filing the appeal. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition for condoning the delay it was stated that the District Forum passed an order on 6.5.96 and despatched it on 8.5.96. But the date on which the copy of the order was received by the petitioner was not mentioned. It was merely stated that subsequently they received the order. It was next submitted that after receipt of the above order, the petitioners have taken steps to proceed with the appeal. But after complying with the administrative formalities, when they have come to a decision to move the appeal, there is a change in the Legal Advisors and hence there is a delay. Except vague allegations, there was no mention as to when the copy of the order was received, and that is the time they have taken for processing the papers for filing the appeal, when actually the appeal was ready to be filed and when the change occurred in the Legal Advisors. The long delay of 188 days is not at all explained. We are, therefore, satisfied that there is no sufficient cause shown for not preferring the appeal in time. The petition for condoning the delay is accordingly dismissed.
IN the result, the FAIA 1418/96 is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal FASR 2936/96 is rejected. No costs. Appeal rejected. _____________