Per Mr.Dhanraj Khamatkar – Hon’ble Member: (1) This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 12.01.2010 passed in Consumer Complaint No.89/2009 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sindhudurg (in short ‘Forum below”). (2) The facts of the case in brief can be summarized as under: Original Complainants are running the petrol pump. They have taken an electric connection for their petrol pump. It is their contention that they have applied for the electric connection for the petrol pump and the Appellant Company had forced them to take connection for industrial purpose. For the petrol pump, meter connection is industrial and for other electricity consumption the meter is commercial. The number of electric meter is 00408893. It was the contention of the Complainant that they were paying their electricity bills regularly. However, the Appellant Company vide letter dated 12.10.2009 have informed that from October, 2007 to August, 2009 they should pay an amount of Rs.50,101/- considering the use of electricity for petrol pump as a commercial use. The Complainant contended that as his meter is for industrial purpose the bill for commercial use is illegal and hence, he had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Appellant Company praying to declare the bill illegal and hence, it be cancelled. (3) The Forum below after hearing both the parties have allowed the complaint and declared that bill dated 12.10.2009 issued by the Appellant Company as illegal and awarded Rs.3,000/- as compensation and cost to the Complainant and directed to return an amount of Rs.25,050.50 credited to the account of the appellant. Thus aggrieved by that order, the present appeal is filed. (4) Admittedly, the Original Complainant/Respondent operates the petrol pump and they have taken electric connection from the Appellant Company for the industrial purpose. Admittedly, he is paying the bills regularly. It is not disputed that the Appellant Company by letter dated 12.10.2009 has informed the Complainant to pay Rs.50,101/- w.e.f. October, 2007 to August, 2009, as the electrical use of the petrol pump is treated as commercial purpose. In their written version the Appellant has stated that as per the Electricity Act, 2003 the powers of fixing the electric rates are entrusted with Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission. On the basis of aforesaid powers the Electricity Regulatory Commission has prepared the Electricity Supply Code and other conditions of Supply Regulations, 2005 and as per the Regulation the powers of changing tariff is given to the Appellant Company. Accordingly, the Chief Engineer vide his directions dated 1st October, 2007 directed the electricity supply to the Petrol Pump to be treated as commercial purpose and accordingly, the Appellant Company has informed the original Complainant/Respondent about the difference to be paid in view of the directions given by the Chief Engineer. The Ld. Counsel for the Appellant Company has quoted authority of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, from First Appeal Nos.240 & 433 of 1992, Anand Cane Crusher V/s. U.P. State Electricity Board and Anr. U.P. State Electricity, reported in [1993STPL (CL) 420 NC], upholding that “Evident that it is a dispute in the realm of tariff and not in the realm of incorrect and inflated bills --------------- it is a dispute in the realm of pricing which is beyond the jurisdiction of consumer forums to adjudicate upon”. In the present case it is evident that the original Complainant/Respondent is paying the electricity bills regularly. Appellant informed that as there is change in the tariff policy he was asked to pay difference accordingly. Hence, it is evident that it is a dispute in the realm of tariff and not in the realm of incorrect and inflated bills either in terms of unit consumption or in the calculations of amount. The dispute is thus in the nature of dispute about the consideration payable for the power supply. This dispute in the realm of pricing which is beyond the jurisdiction of consumer Forum to adjudicate upon. (5) The Forum below failed to appreciate the issues involved in the consumer complaint and arrived at erroneous conclusions, which cannot be upheld. We, therefore, hold accordingly and pass the following order: O R D E R (i) Appeal is allowed. (ii) Order of the Forum below is set aside. (iii) In the result, Complaint No. 89/2009 stands rejected. (iv) Inform the parties accordingly. |
