AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
IN this complaint filed under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 complainant claims Rs. 75.00 lakhs as compensation.
COMPLAINANT alleged that there was first delay in supply of electricity to the industrial undertaking which it started in 1984 and that power connection was granted in the year 1993 and thereafter this supply was erratic and on two occasions it was disconnected and again restored. This complaint was filed on 21.9.1998 when complainant owed a sum of Rs. 6,85,683.10 towards the bill for electricity charges due to the opposite parties. This bill is dated 3.12.1997. Earlier for non-payment of bill dated 3.11.1997 for Rs. 5,20,317/- the electric connection to the factory premises of the complainant was disconnected. It would appear since the bills had not been paid the electric connection remained disconnected. Complainant thus alleges initially there was delay in supplying the regular power connection to its factory and thereafter disconnection of the same "under the guise of lifting the exemption of minimum charges" and this caused undue and severe hardship to it and its factory came to standstill. The complainant on these basis alleges that there was negligence on the part of the opposite parties and on account of their failure to provide necessary services it has to suffer loss which it says could not be quantified to a particular amount. However, complainant says he restricts his claim to Rs. 75 lakhs. According to the complainant cause of action arose on 29.11.1997 when electric supply to its factory was disconnected.
Written version has been filed by the opposite parties. It is the case of the opposite parties that this complaint is barred by limitation inasmuch as cause of action arose in 1984 as per the case set up by the complainant itself. It is also stated that complicated questions of facts and law arise and that since a great deal of evidence will have to be led it is better that complainant is relegated to Civil Court. While denying the allegations of the complainant it is stated that total outstanding amount from the complainant towards electric charges is Rs. 24,35,474.25. It is then added as under : "(i) The Government of Orissa has given the benefit of exemption for payment of minimum charges to all the industries covered under pre-92 IPR benefits and upto 31.7.1997 only. As such the petitioner is liable for payment of minimum charges from 8/97 onwards which has been notified by erstwhile OSEB. Hence the petitioner is liable for payment of minimum charges from 8/97 onwards and the present claim of the department is in line with the tariff and statutory order from time to time. (ii) The petitioner has filed a case in the Hon''ble High Court of Orissa for exemption of minimum charges (OJC No. 15788/1997). The Hon''ble High Court was pleased to direct the petitioner on 14.1.1998 to make adhoc payment of rupees two lakhs within one month for restoration of power supply. The petitioner has not complied with the orders of the Hon''ble High Court till date and to avoid such payment the present proceedings has been initiated by the petitioner."
COMPLAINANT admits filing of writ petition by him in the High Court of Orissa but according to him those proceedings involved different issue altogether. COMPLAINANT further says that against the order dated 14.1.1998 of the High Court directing it to deposit Rs. 2.00 lakhs as interim measures, Special Leave Petition has been filed in the Hon''ble Supreme Court where it is pending. After the written version had been filed we directed the complainant on 17.9.2001 to file rejoinder and also to file along with that its evidence by means of affidavits. Complaint was adjourned to 7.12.2001. On this date we found that even rejoinder had not been filed and on the request complaint was adjourned to 20.12.2001. Again on this date four weeks time was granted to file rejoinder and opportunity was also given to file evidence by way of affidavit and the complaint adjourned to 22.3.2002 on which date under mistake by the Registry it was not listed. However, the matter was again listed on 23.4.2002 and adjourned to 8.11.20. Till this date no affidavit by way of evidence has been filed. We have declined the request of Mr. Tripathy, Counsel for the complainant to grant any further time to file evidence by way of affidavit. In our view, more than a year was enough for the complainant to take steps for filing evidence by way of affidavit. As a matter of fact, in Consumer Forum, a complaint has to be decided in certain set time schedule. Any request for adjournment is, therefore, declined. We have heard the matter and also gave opportunity to file written notes by 11.11.2002.
IT thus appear to us that after having gone to the High Court in the writ petition challenging the levy of minimum charges the complainant chooses to file this complaint claiming huge sum of Rs. 75.00 lakhs. IT is so because no Court-fee is payable in a Consumer Forum. There is nothing on record to show as to how this amount of Rs. 75.00 lakhs has been arrived at. With the complaint certain documents were filed but those documents do not at all go to prove the damages as claimed by the complainant. We would, therefore, dismiss this complaint. However, if the complainant chooses to file a civil suit, this dismissal will not come in its way and complainant may seek exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. In this connection reference may be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Engineering Works v. PSG Industrial Institute, II (1995) CPJ 1 (SC)=(1995) 3 SCC 583. Complaint dismissed.