PER SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER Respondent herein is a consumer of the petitioner Board. The petitioner Board after inspecting the premises of the respondent allegedly found an unauthorized load of 8 kw being used for the purpose of welding, marble cutting, polishing etc. in the new building which was under construction at about 25 meters away from the respondent’s house. The petitioner Board accordingly issued a bill dated 04.08.2001 for Rs.38,880/-. The respondent was directed to remit the bill amount within 28.08.2001. The respondent informed the petitioner Board that she never misused the energy and without proper enquiry the petitioner Board was insisting that she was responsible to deposit the bill amount. Even as she protested against the hefty bill, her request for grant of payment in installments was allowed with a view to exempt her from disconnection of power supply. The first installment amount of Rs.3,888/- was deposited on 29.08.2001. According to the respondent, she was paying her bills according to the consumption of the energy regularly but she was not liable to pay for unused energy and that there was no basis for issuance of the bill in question for such a huge amount and the same was invalid and amounted to deficiency on the part of the OPs. A consumer complaint was lodged with the District Forum on these lines for quashing the bill and also for direction to pay cost and compensation to her. On being noticed, the petitioner Board resisted the complaint. On appraisal of the issues and the evidence adduced by the parties, the District Forum held that the demand raised by the petitioner Board was illegal and hence quashed the bill in question. The petitioner Board was also directed to adjust the remitted amount of Rs.3,888/- against future bills. On the order of the District Forum being challenged by the petitioner Board before the State Commission in appeal, the State Commission by its impugned order dated 10.11.2009 partly allowed the appeal of the petitioner Board by modifying the order of the District Forum to the extent that the penal charge in respect of unauthorized use of electricity was reassessed at Rs.3,888/- and as such the order of the District Forum to the extent that it directed adjustment of first installment of Rs.3,888/- against future bills was set aside and it was held by the State Commission that there was no need for any further adjustment or refund of the amount already deposited by the respondent. Remaining amount of the bill of Rs.38,880/- in question was accordingly set aside. Challenge in this revision petition is to this order of the State Commission. 2. We have heard counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. While partly allowing the appeal and modifying the order of the District Forum, the State Commission has recorded the following reasons in support of its view:- “This commission perused the entire evidence available in the case records and heard both sides. The complainant has not adducing any supporting evidence to prove that the marble grinding machine was running by suing the generator. It presumed that the marble grinding machine was running only after unauthorisedly to take the electrical energy from the appellant/opposite parties. The electrical energy is a public energy. Preserve this energy necessary for the survival of the generations. We are not seeing any reason to interfere in the order passed by the Forum below. But the appellant/opposite party is having any explanation to calculate Rs.38,8880/- is a bill amount. It is alleged. The complainant/opposite party is accepted to the use of electrical energy only for one week for that purpose they consumed only electrical energy for the value of Rs.5,000/- maximum. It is not fair to issue a bill for the huge amount of Rs.38,880/- without any norms and principles. This Commission is having a strong view that such amount assessed by the appellant/opposite parties is illegal and hereby set aside the Ext.P1 notice dated 23.08.01 for Rs.38,880/- and the complainant is liable to pay Rs.3,888/- for her illegal consumption of electrical energy for the appellant/opposite parties. In the result this appeal is allowed in part and modified the order passed by the Forum below. This Commission set aside the Ext.P1 notice dated 23.8.01 for Rs.38,880/- and this Commission found that the amount remitted by the complainant Rs.3,888/- dated 29.9.01 into the account of penal charge as per Ext.P1 penal bill (as an installment) is not necessary to adjust in the future bills. In other words the Ext.P1 notice dated 29.8.01 for Rs.38,880/- is reduced to an amount of Rs.3,888/-. This Commission assessed Rs.3,888/- as a penal charge for the unauthorized use of the electricity by the respondent complainant in the absence of the norms adopted by the appellant for issue of Ext.P1 bill. It is also directed the appellant that the adjustment or refund of any amount is not necessary. This appeal is disposed accordingly. Both parties are directed to suffer their own respective costs. These points are answered accordingly.” 3. We agree with the view taken by the State Commission. In response to an opportunity afforded to the petitioner Board, counsel for the petitioner Board has furnished copy of circular dated 31.03.2010 containing instructions of the Board in regard to conduct of inspections at consumer premises, issuing assessments, addressing disputes etc. issued by the petitioner Board. Admittedly, the inspection in question was carried out by the officials of the petitioner Board on 04.08.2001 and hence further time was sought and granted for filing guidelines in force at the time of the inspection in question on 04.08.2001. However, the document filed by the counsel for the petitioner Board which is bearing no.3225/98 (Plg.Com.3639/98) dated 20.10.1998 contains instructions in regard to levy of penalty in proven cases of misuse or unauthorized use and not in respect of conduct of inspection etc. 4. Having considered the submissions made before us, we do not see any reason to interfere with the well-reasoned order of the State Commission by which partial relief based on the facts and circumstances has already been allowed to the petitioner Board. There is no case for further relief. The impugned order of the State Commission is, therefore, upheld and the revision petition stands dismissed with the parities bearing their own costs. |
