Municipal Council, Rahon vs Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. & Anr

V.K. Jain, J

The petitioner Municipal Council, Rahon obtained an electricity connection from the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent for providing street light to the citizens of Rahon. An agreement was executed between the parties on 27.10.2009, incorporating their respective obligations in respect of the said services. The said agreement inter-alia provided that night period of lighting for every lamp shall be of duration not less than an average of 6 hours over each period of one year dating 1st April in each year. It further provided that if the total number of units consumed in the whole year was less than that, it would have been if the lamps had been lit on an average of 6 hours per night over the whole year, the board shall charge for the difference between the stipulated units and units actually consumed at the tariff rates.

The respondent charged a sum of Rs.1,22,675/- from the petitioner on account of the duration of the night light being less than 8 hours. This was done in terms of account of Electricity Supply Instructions Manual dated 31.03.2011.

This was also the case of the petitioner that the street lights, could not be used for the desired duration on account of deficiency on the part of respondent in rendering services to it by not attending to the complaints made from time to time on account of inadequate maintenance of the said services.

The complaint was resisted by the respondent, which justified the demand raised by it and also denied any deficiency on its part in rendering services to the petitioner. The District Forum having ruled in favour of the petitioner, the respondent approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 29.01.2015, the State Commission while maintaining the award of compensation to the extent of Rs.20,000/- on account of deficiency in services and litigation expenses quantified at Rs.5,000/-, set aside the order of the District Forum to the extent the demand of Rs.122675/- was set aside. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the State Commission, the petitioner is before this Commission by way of this Revision Petition.

The learned counsel for the respondent has drawn my attention to the clause 11 to the agreement which reads as under:

Applicability of act and Rule Act: Clause-11 the parties to this agreement shall be bound and by the provision of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, and my statutory amendment there of the rules made there under and of the conditions of supply of the Punjab State Electricity Board in so far as these may be relevant.

It would thus be seen that the petitioner as well as the respondent, were bound by the provisions contained in Indian Electricity Act as amended from time to time as well as the rules framed thereunder and the conditions of supply by Punjab State Electricity Board.

The Electricity Supply Regulations, as extracted by the State Commission in the impugned order clearly shows that the minimum consumption has to be calculated on the basis of an average of 8 hours per night over the whole year and the Corporation was to charge for the difference between the stipulated units and units actually consumed at the tariff rates. Since the regulations were binding upon the parties including the petitioners herein, the minimum charges were to be calculated on the basis of average 8 hours per night over the whole year though the agreement envisaged an average of 6 hours per night. The respondent became entitled to charge on the basis of an average of 8 hours per night from the date the relevant regulation came into force.

It is not quite clear as to when the said regulations actually came into force. It is also not clear as to for which exact period, the demand of Rs.1,22,000/- pertains. Therefore, it would only be fair and reasonable to direct that the respondent Corporation shall re-imburse the demand raised by it and if it finds that any part of the demand is based upon and average of 8 hours for a period prior to coming into force of the regulations, the necessary adjustment in this regard will be given to the petitioner. If, any other regulation stipulating average of 8 hours was in force during the period to which the bill pertains, that can also be considered by the Corporation for the purpose of complying with this direction. The re-examination of the bill in terms of this direction, shall be carried out by the respondent and adjustment if any, required in terms of this order, shall be given within three months from today.

As far as the compensation for the deficiency in rendering services is concerned, the amount awarded by the District Forum was not challenged by the petitioner, by filing an appeal before the State Commission nor does the present petition expressly seek enhancement of the compensation.

The Revision Petition stands disposed of in terms of this order leaving the parties to bear their own costs.