KAMAL INDIA PVT.LTD. vs MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI

THIS Complaint has been filed by M/s. Kamal India Pvt. Ltd. running its business of Garments Exports in Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi -110020. Briefly the facts of the case are that the complainants were sanctioned three power connections; an Industrial Power Connection with a load of 95 HP, an Industrial Light connection with a load of 10 KW and a not her connection having a load of 0.95 KW by the respondent No. 2 i.e. (DESU). It is further stated that for obtaining these connections all the formalities and documents duly completed were filed with the opposite party No. 2.

IN their contention the complainant has stressed the point that being an S.I.P. consumer, (having a sanctioned load of less than 100KW) they should have .been charged as per the S.I.P tariff. They further contend that it was obligatory on the part of D.E.S.U. to supply electricity to the complainant on the same terms and conditions as applicable to S.I.P. consumers within the Union Territory of Delhi. It has also been argued by the Counsel that the complainant continued to make payment of the bills which were in accordance with the statutory requirements and as per the tariff prescribed. The complainant has stated that respondent No.2 carried out one sided inspection of the factory premises on 27.1.90 without informing or issuing any notice or intimation to the complainant. In pursuance of this inspection which the complainant contends to be one sided and illegal, the report dated 10/12-4-90 directing the complainant to remove the alleged excess load as mentioned in the illegal inspection report and threatening to levy misuse charges by converting S.I.P to L.I.P. large industrial power and low power factor (LPF) charges are un-warranted and unjustified.

The complainant on receiving the said notice made a representation against the one sided alleged illegal inspection report vide their letter dated 25th April, 1990 and requested that no action be taken against the complainant as there was no misuse on his part and further that in support of his stand he deposited a Test Report together with the requisite fee and also sought a personal hearing to explain that the bill of Rs. 6,85,255.13P. for the period May, 1990 to Feb. 1992 was uncalled for and unjustified.

IT is further pointed out by the complainant that respondent No.2 carried out another inspection of their factory on 10.12.91 wherein no discrepancies and irregularities were noticed in their meters by Respondent No.2. In their report it was clearly mentioned that all the things including the meter were working correctly. The complainant contends that while he was seeking justice from respondent No.2 and had hoped that having submitted the test report together with the requisite fee DESU should not have taken action against the complainant and should have also corrected the bill which was disputed by the complainant and that contrary to this the respondent No.2 unilaterally disconnected the electricity causing irreparable loss to the complainant company as well as its employees who were rendered unemployed. The complainant has sought the following reliefs : - (a) Restoration of the Electric Connection against their meter. (b) To raise fresh bills on S.I.P. rates, without levying L.P.F. charges and misuse charges. (c) To pay Rs. 50,000/- on account of damages suffered By the complainant and Rs. 10,000/- per day from the date of disconnection of electricity till the date of its restoration."

The learned Counsel for the complainant as well as the Respondent argued the case at considerable length and the case had to be heard in several hearings.

DURING the course of arguments several clarifications had to be sought on the various terminologies used by respondent No.2 in their communications and particularly in respect of the two documents (i) Annexure ''D'' report of inspection dated 5.4.90 and (ii) Annexure ''E'' report of inspection dated 10.4.90. To ensure correct interpretation of the terminologies and also to verify the basis of tariff rates officials of respondent No.2 Sh. H.C. Batra (Suptd.) Technical Shri Narender Jain (Suptd.) Technical and Mr. S.N. Aggarwal Senior Clerk bulk supply for billing were summoned. After interrogation and seeking clarification from the above mentioned officials of respondent No. 2 it was admitted by the respondent Counsel and officials present on 3.3.93 that the misuse charges at the rate of 50% P.A. on account of lighting load found connected to the industrial power connection on the basis of inspection report dated 5.4.90 could not be levied. Taking note of this fact and admission of Respondent No. 2 the complainant was not unjustified in not making the payment of D.E.S.U. consolidated bill for the period of May, 1990 to Feb.1992 amounting to Rs;. 6,85,225.13P. including the amounts of Rs. 63.446.29P. and Rs. 1,63,261.84P. towards misuse charges of 50% and Low Tension LT and Low Power Factor LPF charges as per Annexure ''H'' (page 22 & 23), which was payable by the complainant by 6th April, 1992 and where for his electricity was disconnected. The second contention made by the complainant is that the Shunt Capacitates of the requisite capacity were installed in August 1990 and the test Report was submitted on 7.8.90. As such after the shunt capacitates were installed the respondent No.2 was not entitled to any surcharge and still they levied a surcharge of 10% in the dispute bill Annexure ''H''. The Counsel for the respondent on the other hand has argued the point that, since, the inspection on the basis of test report was conducted in January, 1992 and therefore they were entitled to charge the surcharge till the date of inspection from May, 1990 to February 1992. The two issues which emerge out as the main contention of the complainant are : - (1) Whether the inspection reports dated 5.4.90 and 21.1.92 as carried out by D.E.S.U. were in conformity with the Rules and procedure laid down in this behalf and; (2) Whether in view of the fact that the power load sanctioned was less than 100 K.W. the levy of surcharge of 10% and misuse charges of 50% in the disputed bill for the period May, 1990 to February 1992 were justified, as per the tariff rates applicable.

We have given due consideration to the arguments of both the learned Counsel. We have however to observe that it was the duty of the respondent No.2 to have carried out the inspection of the factory as per the rules and provisions within a reasonable time of their submitting the test report together with the requisite fee. We, therefore held that in view of the admission of the fact by respondent No.2''s representatives that as per tariff applicable the complainant should not have been charged for either surcharge at 10% or misuse charges at 50%. The respondent No.2 for reasons best known to them did not carry out the inspection for a period as long as more than seventeen months. The complainant therefore, can not be allowed to suffer for this lapse which neither the respondent''s Counsel nor the officials of respondent No.2 could explain. Respondent No.2 are not entitled to charge a surcharge @ 10% on account of Low Power Factor w.e.f. 7th August, 1990 till the date of preparing the bill. Accordingly we direct that D.E.S.U. should revise the bills after deleting the excess amounts of 10% as surcharge and misuse charges at 50% which were not due from the complainant.

WE are constrained to mention that it is a case in which respondent No.2 have not only over looked but violated the regulatory requirements which they should have adhered to and not preferred exhorbitant bills on the complainant, for payment and in default carried out disconnection, contrary to tariff rates applicable to the complainant, thereby causing loss of business to the complainant. It is also worth mentioning that the contents of inspection report dated 5.4.90 and 21.1.92 and the details mentioned therein and the bills raised which could not be read out or explained even by the well versed staff of respondent No.2 and therefore it is strange how respondent No.2 expects such illegible report and bills to be read and complied by consumers majority of whom are less educated and nor conversant with the terminologies used by D.E.S.U.

IT is a case which highlights the arbitrary functioning of the inspection staff and equally arbitrary mechanism or preferring exorbitant bills in defiance of tariff conditions applicable to the consumer. IT is a case where the damages and loss caused to the business of the consumer due to disconnection of electricity is proved beyond doubt. At this stage the learned Counsel for the complainant stated that he did not wish to press other grounds of his complaint including the award of heavy compensation for the loss of business suffered due to unwarranted disconnection of electricity.

We were inclined to grant damages to the complainant, but in view of his having given up the claim for damages, we do not grant the same. It may however, be observed that lot of time of the Court has been wasted be cause of raising exorbitant and incorrect bills on the complainant. In such cases it be comes the duty of the high officers to examine the bills and give relief to the consumers to save them from avoidable harassment. We therefore, recommend that a high Powered Committee comprising of a senior administrative officer and engineer of the rank of Chief Engineer/S.E. and one officer from the billing department be constituted so that consumers are not compelled to file such complaints before the Commission. It is also relevant to point out that the Counsel of respondent No.2 felt difficulty in explaining the technical matters and even the officials of the D.E.S.U. who were present could not properly help him. The result is that the time of the Courts is wasted. This is a case of this type.

THE complaint is allowed with costs and the respondent No.2 is directed to furnish the revised bills to the complainant within a week of this order and restore the disconnected electricity connection within one week thereafter failing which action under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act shall be taken against Respondent No.2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we award Rs .5,000/- as costs to the complainant. Complaint allowed with costs.