Uttaranchal Power Corporation Ltd. vs ANAND PRAKASH

THIS is an appeal against the order dated 22.4.2003 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar whereby the demand note issued by the appellant to the complainant after the permanent disconnection has been cancelled. The appellant was further directed to adjust the security amount. The appellant was also directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 1,500/- (Rupees one thousand five hundred) and cost of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) to the complainant.

THE brief facts of the case are that the complainant was running a flour mill for his livelihood. He could not continue the work. He, therefore, stopped taking electricity from March 1999. On 27.3.1999, he applied for permanent disconnection. He was asked to deposit a sum of Rs. 200/- (Rupees two hundred) as fee of permanent disconnection. He deposited this amount. Sh. N.P. Junior Engineer went on the spot on 23.4.1999 and permanently disconnected the connection and sent a report on 25.4.1999. THE complainant has deposited a sum of Rs. 6,000/- (Rupees six thousand) as security amount. He made several requests for the refund of the security amount but on 3.5.2000, he was served with a notice that he should pay a sum of Rs. 16,948/- (Rupees sixteen thousand nine hundred forty-eight). In this amount the arrears of May, 1999 were also shown. When he was not heard by the appellant, he filed a complaint before the learned Forum. In the learned Forum the opposite party filed written statement and alleged that this amount was due against the complainant. There were arrears of Rs. 17,476/- (Rupees seventeen thousand four hundred seventy-six) against the complainant. From this amount, Rs. 6,000/- (Rupees six thousand) were deducted and then he was asked to deposit Rs. 11,476/- (Rupees eleven thousand four hundred seventy-six). The complainant is bound to deposit that amount.

Before the learned Forum, the complainant had filed the copy of the final bill showing the dues of Rs. 3,220/- (Rupees three thousand two hundred twenty) on 24.2.1999. He deposited this amount and it is after this that the disconnection was made. According to the learned Forum, the bill was charged @ Rs. 3,320/- per month @ Rs. 77/- per horse power for 20 horse powers. The bill which was issued was for the period from 25.1.1999 to 18.4.1999 and, therefore, it was for Rs. 9,660/- (Rupees nine thousand six hundred sixty). From 19.4.1999 to 30.4.1999, the complainant consumed 98 units for a price of Rs. 352.10/- (Rupees three hundred-fifty two and ten paise). Therefore, according to the calculation of the learned Forum, the amount due was Rs. 10,012.10 (Rupees ten thousand twelve and ten paise). Regarding surcharge the learned Forum has held that since the delay was caused by the Electricity Department itself, therefore, there is no question of surcharge. Thus according to the learned Forum, the only amount due against the complainant was Rs. 10,012.10 (Rupees ten thousand twelve and ten paise). The Electricity Department can deduct Rs. 6,000/- (Rupees six thousand only) after calculating interest due on it and may charge the excess amount from the complainant. The learned Forum has not quashed the entire bill but has only partially amended the bill on the basis of calculation.

BEING aggrieved by this order the Electricity Department has filed this appeal. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the records. The main argument is regarding the rate. It was argued that the rate per horse power was Rs. 77/- for 20 horse powers, therefore, the amount comes to Rs. 1,540/- (Rupees one thousand five hundred forty) but the complainant has been paying Rs. 3,220/- (Rupees three thousand two hundred twenty) each month. There is no dispute on it but the tariff was revised from 25.1.1999 for the minimum charges and, therefore, the complainant was bound to pay @ Rs. 250/- per BHP and on this rate the amount comes to Rs. 11,476/- (Rupees eleven thousand four hundred seventy-six). We are surprised at this argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant because if the tariff was revised from 25.1.1999, the disconnection application was moved on 27.3.1999 and the disconnection was made on 23.4.1999. As per rules of the Electricity Department, every due is to be collected before the disconnection and if the tariff has been revised the complainant should have been specifically informed of the actual due against him when he applied for permanent disconnection on 27.3.1999 and before 23.4.1999 the entire amount should have been claimed but after disconnection about a year after, fresh bill has been sent on the basis of the revised tariff. The plea of this revised tariff has nowhere been taken in the written statement. We have gone through the grounds of appeal as well. In the grounds of appeal, there is also no such allegation regarding the revision of the tariff and rules. Without any pleading in the written statement, the Electricity Department cannot be allowed to raise this plea for the first time in the arguments. This fact should have been informed to the complainant himself before the disconnection that he will have to pay the dues on the basis of the revised tariff but it was not done so. After the entire amount has been paid and after the contract has been terminated, the relationship between the parties comes to an end and it does not lie in the mouth of the appellant to say that some amount is still due against you.

THE net result is that we do not find any force in this appeal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. ORDER THE appeal is hereby dismissed. Cost easy. Appeal dismissed.