PUNAMCHAND M. PARMAR vs DY. ENGINEER, GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD

THESE are cross appeals arising out of the same.judgment of the District Forum, Mehsana and, therefore, they are heard together and disposed of by this single order. We address the parties as complainant and opposite party for the sale of convenience.

THE complainant is undisputedly the consumer of Gujarat Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board). He was originally having the industrial power connection of 95 H.P. It appears that the complainant has from time to time decreased and increased the horse power in accordance with his requirement and the Board has sanctioned these changes from time to time for which there is no dispute. According to the complainant when he originally took the connection he had given the security deposit on the basis of 95 H.P When he has reduced the load the said deposit has not been returned. But in this case, we are not concerned with this claim though he has orally made a grievance before us. THE question raises here is regarding reduction of load prior to 1986. He had claimed the interest from, 1982 but the learned Judge has awarded interest only from 21-2-86 to 20-6-89. We do not find any error committed by the District Forum. We accept the arguments of Mr. Lakhani, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Board that the Board has actually reduced the load from February 86 and, therefore, cannot claim interest prior to that date though Mr. Lakhani has disputed the obligation to pay any interest relying upon Clause 22 of the Condition and Miscellaneous Charges for Supply of Electricity. THE District Forum has awarded Rs. 10,800/- the excess of deposit kept by the Board though the load was decreased in 1990. Though the load was decreased in December 1990 the District Forum has not awarded any interest on this amount and Mr. Lakhani again relies upon the Rule 22 to which we will refer to subsequently. The third item awarded by the District Forum is Rs. 4,613/-, the refund of duty wrongly recovered. There is no dispute that the duty was required to be refunded. The question is whether the Board is liable to pay interest if they have actually recovered from the consumer. Since the Board is only collecting agent, we do not think that the Board will be responsible to pay interest if the duty is refunded. If the Board has recovered any interest over this amount from the complainant, the Board shall have to refund the interest also. The Board shall, therefore, re-calculate the duty and shall refund the amount of interest recovered for late payment on this amount of Rs. 4,613/- at the relevant time. The complainant is claiming Rs. 66,300/- on this ground but there is no clear evidence as to whether the said amount has been recovered or not. We believe that the officers of the Board who possess the full records might have the correct figures.

So far the arguments of Mr. Lakhani regarding Condition No. 22 of Conditions and Miscellaneous charges for supply of electricity booklet is concerned, the condition No. 22 gives power to the Board to enter into a formal contract and ask for security deposit in cash against the payment of electricity bills in future. The Board has also the power to apply the amount of security deposit towards the payment of outstanding dues from the consumers. The last part of that condition which is material reads as under : "The security deposit which is paid by the consumer shall carry no interest." Relying upon this last portion of the clause, Mr. Lakhani vehemently urged that the Board is not responsible to pay interest. We are not impressed by the arguments of Mr. Lakhani. This clause, at the most would apply to the security deposit which a consumer is liable to pay or keep with the Board. But when on account of reduction of load, if the excess amount becomes payable to the consumer it is the obligation and duty of the Board either to return the same immediately to the consumer or to give adjustment in his energy bill as it also has a right to adjust the amount of security deposit to their dues. According to our opinion, the Board ought to have returned the amount of deposit within a reasonable time which we consider to be approximately a month. If the Board does not return the amount of deposit which becomes due and payable to the consumer, there is no reason why the Board should not pay interest to the consumer for the amount unauthorisedly retained. It also appears that the consumer has also made application to the Board for return of money and sent notices also but the same have not been replied till today except letter dated 3-2-92 where the Board after a long time asked for return of the deposit receipt. We find that this is an excuse for retaining the money payable to the consumer. The Board had the opportunity to adjust the amount in the bi-monthly bills or could have informed the complainant to collect the money or could have sent by cheque or in any case must have shown its willingness to make the payment. But since the payment having not been made, the Board, according to our opinion, is liable to pay interest at least at bank rate. We, therefore, allow the appeal of the appellant (Mr. Punamchand M. Parmar) to this extent and direct that the Board shall pay interest on the outstanding amount of Rs. 10,800/- after a month when it became due and payable till the payment is made at the bank rate which is 13% p.a. and will also return the amount of interest on Rs. 4,613.10, if recovered as stated above.

THE complainant has made a grievance regarding Sales Tax. Since the Board is recovering the Sales Tax as an agent of the State Government, the complainant is not a consumer and otherwise also there is no cogent evidence before us or specific demand in the complaint to arrive at a conclusion. We have therefore not dealt with this point. THE complainant can take his remedy elsewhere. ORDER THE appeal filed by the complainant is partly allowed. THE appeal filed by the Board is dismissed. THE Board shall make the payment as stated above. In the circumstances there will be no order as to costs. Appeal No. 178/92 partly allowed. Appeal No. 181/92 dismissed.