1.      The present Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the “Act”) against order dated 14.12.2007, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra (‘State Commission’) in FA No. 115/2003 and First Appeal No. 128/2003, wherein the State Commission allowed FA No. 128/2003 filed by Respondent-1/OP-1 and dismissed FA No. 115/2003 filed by the Petitioner/Complainant. Thus, setting aside the Order of the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Dhule (“District Consumer Forum”), dated 29.11.2002 in Complaint No. 68/2000.

2.      For convenience, the parties in the present matter are referred as per the Complaint before District Forum.

3.    Brief facts of the case, as per the complainant, are that they operated a plastic factory in the name M/s Rajyog Plastic in Dhule and had secured electricity supply of 130 HP from MSEB on 29.06.1996 and paid Rs.2,31,910 towards various charges. Due to financial difficulties, the factory ceased operations in July 1997, and the electricity supply was disconnected on 02.01.1998 due to non-payment of dues. On 18.12.1998, they applied for reduction in the load from 130 HP to 67 HP and requested for restoration of power supply. The competent authority approved the conversion from High Tension (HT) to Low Tension (LT) supply on 24.03.1999, subject to certain conditions. Subsequently, the Superintending Engineer, Dhule notified on 17.05.1999 of the dues outstanding as on Rs.78,823.61, with a directive to settle the amount by 28.05.1999. The complainant requested that this amount, along with the service line charges (SLC), be adjusted against the refundable amount of Rs.1,57,870. The Superintending Engineer confirmed adjustment of the arrears of Rs.78,823.61 vide letter dated 17.06.1999, leaving a refundable balance of Rs.39,046.39, which was to be credited against future bills. They were further directed to submit necessary documents, including A-1 Form, Load Form, list of machinery and company resolution authorizing a director to execute the application with MSEB. On 22.06.2000, after adjusting the refund amount, the Superintending Engineer required them to deposit Rs.33,048.61 for release of the LT connection. Despite further letters and payments, they were ultimately required to pay Rs.44,550 in full. Their effort to offset the refund due was refused, and power supply remained disconnected. Consequently, they issued a notice dated 07.06.2000, demanding Rs.4,08,000 as compensation for losses due to non-restoration of the electricity supply.

4.      In reply, OP disputed their allegations and contended that there was no deficiency in service. The complainant had initially been a HT power consumer and later became a LT power consumer but had failed to submit necessary documents and deposit the required amount for LT power. They submitted the documents on 24.04.2000, by which time their unit was already closed. The OP denied the claim that they suffered Rs.4,80,000 loss. As the power supply was disconnected on 02.01.1998 for non-payment of dues and permanently disconnected later, the complainant was no longer a consumer. Additionally, they provided consent letter for the transformer at a later stage but failed to deposit the amount required by MSEB vide letter dated 22.06.1999, warranting the dismissal of the complaint. It was contended that while the power supply was disconnected on 02.01.1998, the complaint was filed on 12.06.2000 which is barred by limitation. In fact the firm was consumer only till 02.01.1998, on which date the power supply was permanently disconnected. Further, after the closure of the factory, the complainant had not produced the NOC from the Maharashtra Pollution Board and did not hand over the transformer till 2001. It was by mistake that the complainant was informed of a balance of Rs.39,046.39 with MSEB and clarified that the ORC amount, or any part of it, could not be refunded. It was further stated that the firm was informed by registered post, but the parcel was returned unclaimed.

5.      The learned District Forum vide Order dated 29.11.2002, allowed the complaint with the following reason /findings:

“From the facts mentioned herein above and on perusing the documents before the Forum, it is apparent that the respondent No. 4 has avoided providing sanctioned electric supply to the complainant on one or the other technical reason. On getting 130 H.T. electric supply the factory of the complainant started manufacturing its products. The complainant has applied to reduce the electric load and requested to supply electric energy. As such, the complainant has already produced the required documents at the time of new electric connection. The respondent has not produced any evidence before the Forum to show that at the time of commencing electric supply which document was remained to be complied. The 67 H.P. (L.T.) electric load was sanctioned to the complainant only after making compliance of documents as per demand of the respondent. Under the circumstances, it was necessary to make available electric supply to the complainant immediately. The act of respondent No. 4 Superintending Engineer in issuing three different quotations, showing the amount in balance, though the amount is already in deposit and refusing to accept the amount is certainly very serious amounting to deficiency in service. ... No convincing evidence has been adduced by the Board in this behalf. Therefore, in the opinion of the Forum the complainant has proved that respondents have shown deficiency in service. ... The complainant has demanded the amount of Rs. 4,80,000/- towards loss sustained on account of not providing electric supply in time. In this behalf, the complainant has produced at Exh. 32 the statement showing the particulars of loss of Rs.4,80,000/- sustained by him. The respondent has not denied the said statement. It is only mentioned in the affidavit at. Exh. 82 that the demand of compensation is not admitted. ... It is certain that had 67 H.P. (L.T.) sanctioned load was provided since 02.05.2000 to the factory, the factory would have manufactured the goods and the complainant could have repaid the loan amount. It is true that in that event, the factory of the complainant would not have been sold. Non-supply of electric energy is the only ground for disposing of the factory of the complainant by sale. Therefore, the complainant is certainly entitled to receive the compensation. In the opinion of the Forum, it would be proper to award the amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- towards loss, mental pains and expenses.

(66) In this behalf, the Forum relies on the ruling reported in 1999 (III) C.P.R. 363, State Commission, Utter Pradesh (Rajesh Sengar vs Suresh Kumar). ... (67) The complainant has to receive the amount of Rs.39,046.39 from the Board. In the opinion of the Forum, it would be proper to return the said amount to the complainant, as the Factory is sold. So also, the respondent has illegally charged Rs. 4,271/- towards legal charges. Therefore, in the opinion of the Forum, it would be proper to refund the said amount of legal charges by respondent to the complainant. Hence, the order as below.(68)

Order

A. The complaint of the complainant is partly allowed.

B. The respondent should pay the aggregate amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- (Rupees one lac twenty-five thousand only) to the complainant towards loss, mental pains and expenses of this petition within 1 month from the date of this order.

C. The respondent should pay to the complainant the amount of Rs. 39,046:39, which is receivable by the complainant and the amount of Rs. 4,271/-, which was illegally recovered towards legal charges, i.e. in all Rs.43,317.39 (Rupees Forty-three thousand three hundred seventeen and paise thirty-nine only) within one month from the date of this order.

D. If the amounts mentioned in (A) and (B) are not paid in time mentioned above, the respondent would be liable to pay interest at the rate of 10% p.a. on the said amounts.”

6.      Being aggrieved, Complainant filed FA No 115/2003 and the State Commission vide order dated 14.12.2007 dismissed the appeal with following observations: -

“Thus, it is apparent that the demand of charges was given by Superintending Engineer as per approval letter of Chief Engineer for releasing LT Connection. The terms and conditions for converting 130 HP to 67 HP have not been comply by complainant though the demand was made by MSEB. Mere approval of competent authority for conversion of high tension to lower tension is not sufficient, unless the demand made by the Superintending Engineer as per approval letter have been complied by complainant for release of power supply. Superintending Engineer had demanded the charges on the basis of approval letter by Chief Engineer.

  It appears that, complainant went on making correspondence without taking actual steps for completing required formalities and making payment as per demand made by Superintending Engineer for release of lower tension supply. The Forum below did not consider this aspect. The Forum below erred in holding that after receipt of Rs.5504/- on adjusting amount of Rs. 39046.39 ps. as MSEB. ought to have released supply. We have mentioned that amount of Rs.39046.39ps had already been adjusted while making demand of Rs.33048.61ps. Thus, it is apparent that, complainant did not fulfil the demand of the dues made by Superintending Engineer on the basis of approval given by Chief Engineer. Thus, there appears no deficiency on the part of MSEB for not releasing the low tension power supply. We are inclined to quash and set aside the order passed by the District Forum. We pass the following order.

ORDER

1. Appeal No. 128/2003 is allowed.

2. The impugned judgment and order passed by the District Forum is hereby quashed and set aside.

3. Complaint stands dismissed.

4. Appeal No. 115/2003 is dismissed.

5. In the circumstances parties to bear their own cost.

6. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.”

7.      Being dissatisfied by the Order dated 14.12.2007 passed by the State Commission, Complainant filed the instant Revision Petition No. 942 of 2008 mainly advancing the following grounds:

1. The State Commission failed to consider the conduct of OPs in non-restoration of supply. Despite recognizing that the written version filed on behalf of Respondent No. 5 was unauthorized, it relied solely on this statement without verifying the evidence.
2. The State Commission overlooked the fact that, even if the power supply was not restored, an excess amount of Rs. 39,046.39 was still with the OPs, as per their own letters. Also, Rs.90,605 was refundable for depreciated cost of surrendered transformer. Also, Rs.1,25,000 compensation was denied, without reasons. Even if the power supply was not restored, the balance held by OPs should have been refunded.
3. The State Commission erred in relying solely on OP-4 demand on 17.05.1999, without considering the amounts held by OPs. Even though the State Commission acknowledged the amounts held by the respondents, it failed to ensure their refund.
4. The State Commission failed to apply the principles outlined in Commercial Circular No. 631 dated 22.01.1999 and passed the order with a prejudiced view.

8.      In his arguments, the learned Counsel for Petitioner/ Complainant reiterated the facts, evidence and written submissions and argued that both the District Forum and the State Commission rightly recognized the Petitioner as a consumer, a finding supported by the "Board to provide LT Connection" and expressly admitted by OP-4 in its written version. The sale of the unit was properly recorded before the District Forum, with no dispute raised by the OP. The issue of the pending legal action for recovery and the continued existence of Rajyog Plastic Pvt. Ltd had not been addressed by the State Commission. Its conclusion that Rs.39,046.39 was adjusted while demanding Rs. 33,048.61 was erroneous. He highlighted that MSEB’s collection of Rs.1,18,200 from the consumer for technical estimates had violated Circular No. 487, which mandated that such costs be billed to MIDC, not the consumer. It constitutes clear deficiency in service. Moreover, the demand reflected in Exhibit K for the "Net SLC Amount = Cost of Technical Estimate" was identified as an unfair trade practice, directly contradicting Circular No. 487. Circular No. 625 explicitly prohibited collection of SLC when converting from HT to LT. Yet, in the present case, SLC was wrongfully charged, further evidencing a deficiency in service. The MSEB’s demand of Rs.44,550 was issued while ignoring refundable amounts of Rs.90,605/- and Rs.39,046. Despite they offering to adjust Rs.5,504 plus Rs. 39,046 against the demand, it was unjustly rejected. Although the Executive Engineer had sanctioned 67 HP (LT) and later demanded Rs.87,570, no action was taken in response to his repeated requests.

9.    The learned counsel for OPs emphasized the written version and asserted that the complainant continued to correspond without taking the necessary steps to complete the required formalities and make payment due. The factual contentions asserted by both parties and their veracity could not be assessed in a summary manner. Hence, it was not a fit case for interference by this Commission in its limited revisional jurisdiction. He asserted that the decision of the State Commission had been based on the merits of the case and should not be interfered with.

10.  I have examined the pleadings and associated documents placed on record and rendered thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsels for the parties available.

11.    Admittedly, there is no dispute that the complainant had a power supply of 130 HP load since 29.06.1996 for two years from 29.06.1996 to 28.06.1998. Vide letter dated 18.12.1998, they requested MSEB for a load reduction from 130 HP to 67 HP. It is also undisputed that their supply was temporarily disconnected on 02.01.1998 for non-payment of dues, after which it was permanently disconnected. They requested MSEB to waive minimum charges from June 1997 until reconnection. It is also apparent that the complainant's request for granting concession and reviving the unit was considered by MSEB. The Chief Engineer (Comm) had approved the disconnection of HT supply and conversion to LT supply. MSEB, vide letter dated 17.05.1999, demanded payment of Rs.78,823 and vide letter dated 18.05.1999 the complainant sought the amount to be adjusted against Rs.1,57,870 due to be refunded by the OP as ORC charges, bringing the remaining balance with MSEB to Rs.39,046. Vide letter dated 20.05.2000, MSEB approved the demand for conversion from HT to LT supply, subject to payment of Rs. 44,550. They submitted a cheque dated 23.10.2000 for Rs.5,504 (Rs.44,550 - Rs.39,046), but the same was returned by MSEB, and Rs.44,550 was again demanded on multiple instances for the release of LT connection.

12.  Thus the demand of dues given by Superintending Engineer was as per approval of Chief Engineer for releasing LT Connection. The terms and conditions for converting 130 HP to 67 HP was not complied with by the complainant, notwithstanding the demand made by MSEB. Clearly, mere approval of competent authority for conversion of HT to LT is not adequate, unless the demand made by the OP board as per the approval letter is paid by the complainant for release of power line. There is nothing on record to establish that the complainant complied with the mandate of the Board as per OP policy in this regard. On the other hand, they persisted with making protracted correspondence and without making payment as per the demand of the OP Board. The State Commission considered that Rs.39046.39 was already adjusted and reconciled by the OP Board while making demand of Rs.33048.61 to the complainant. Thus, in the absence of complainant complying with the demand of the dues made by the OP Board, there is no deficiency on the part of MSEB for not releasing the LT power supply.

13.    In view of the foregoing deliberations and after careful perusal of the material on record, I am of the view that no deficiency in service by the OP is established and I find no reason to interfere with the detailed and well reasoned order of the learned State Commission dated 14.12.2007. The Revision Petition No. 942 of 2008 is accordingly dismissed.

14.    There shall be no order as to costs. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.