STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION

BIHAR, PATNA

Appeal No. 209 of 2018

1. Electrical Executive Engineer, North Bihar Power Distribution Company Ltd. Electric Supply Division, Khagaria

2. Asst. Electrical Engineer, North Bihar Power Distribution Company Ltd. Electric Supply Sub Division, Gogari

3. Junior Electrical Engineer, North Bihar Power Distribution Company Ltd. Patbatta, Elect. Supply Sub Division, Gogari

                                                                                                                                                        … OP Nos. 1 to 3/Appellants

Versus

Surendra Prasad Jha, S/o Late Chandeshwari Jha, Resident of Village- Dayalpur, Thana- Bihpur, District- Bhagalpur, Present address- In charge, Principal, Bihar Keshari Moti Hazari Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Dhumaria Bujurg, Thana- Parbatta, District- Khagaria

                                                                                                                                                          …. Complainant/Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant: Adv. V.C. Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondent: None

Before,

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar, President

Mr. Ram Prawesh Das, Member

Md. Shamim Akhtar, Judicial Member

Dated 22.05.2023

As per Sanjay Kumar, President.

O r d e r

1. Present appeal has been filed on behalf of appellant/North Bihar Power Distribution Company Ltd through its officials (O.P. no. 1 to 3) for setting aside the order dated 12.08.2016 passed by Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Khagaria in Complaint Case no. 56 of 2015 whereby and whereunder the Ld. District Consumer Forum has ordered to pay compensation or Rs. 20,000/- to the complainant with interest @9% p.a from the date of order.
2. Complainant had filed a complaint case stating therein that school had taken a commercial electricity connection for which regular payment of electricity bill was made upto 1991 but supply of electricity was disrupted in 1991 due to some fault and even after several application electricity supply was not restored till filing of complaint case rather a bill of 01/13 of Rs. 155,129/- was raised against the school.
3. It is further stated that for the period from 1991 to December 2012 Bill of Rs. 1,55,129/- was raised against the school on 21.01.2013 but inspite of repeated request to recall the electricity bill as there was no supply of electricity during said period, electricity bill was not withdrawn.
4. Complainant filed consumer complaint case before the District Consumer Forum for restoration of electric supply and further complainant is not liable to pay the electricity bill dated 21.01.2013 for Rs. 1,55,129/-  as there was no electric supply during said period.
5. Notices were issued to opposite parties no. 1 to 3 and they appeared and filed their joint written statement.
6. It was stated by opposite parties no. 1 to 3 that electric connection was provided to the school being consumer no. K.G-009472/A.G.I/C.
   S/44 which was a commercial connection. The allegation made by complainant that since 1991 there is no supply of electricity is false and incorrect. No cogent evidence has been submitted by complainant to establish that there was no electric supply during this period.
7. It is further stated that as per records the electric bill was stopped to be prepared for the period from month 9/2007 to month 7/2010. After restoration of supply of electricity bill was again started to be prepared and till month 3/2013 total arrears became Rs. 158,520.25/- and for non-payment of which electric supply was disconnected.
8. It is further submitted that in view of departmental direction the due amount with respect to delay payment surcharge was reviewed for the period prior to year 10/2011 and Rs. 84,839.19/- was adjusted against the bill of 3/2013 and Rs. 73,681.06/- remained payable which has not been paid by the complainant school. For the month, January, 2016 electricity bill of Rs. 73681.00/- remained due to be paid by complainant school.
9. Written statement filed by appellant company is vague. There is specific statement made by complainant that there was no supply of electricity from 1991 to date of filing of complaint. However, in their written statement they have stated that electric supply was disconnected in 2007 but no specific date and amount has been given for non-payment of which electric supply was disconnected. Further, appellant company has stated that electric supply was restored from 8/2010 but has not stated when arrears were paid and what were the arrears. Appellant company has also not stated when bill 3/2013 of Rs. 1,58,520.50 was reviewed and Rs. 73681.06 was found payable by the complainant and same has been communicated to the school.
10. The submission of Ld. Counsel for the appellant that the complaint was not maintainable before the District Consumer Forum as electric connection was for commercial purpose, however, no such stand has been taken in the written statement filed by the appellant before the District Consumer Forum nor any finding has been recorded by the District Consumer Forum on such issue as such said plea can not be permitted to be raised before the State Commission for the first time.
11. None appears for complainant/respondent as such present status is not known. From record it appears that complainant/respondent is a government school and electricity bill is to be paid by government. Head master of complainant school is personally not liable to pay the bill. Account statement from month 1/2009 to 12/2014 has been placed on record from which appears that meter is not running as past reading/present reading/ difference is ‘0’ and 50 units per month on average is charged from the school.
12. Under such circumstance it is very difficult to disbelieve the allegation that since 1991 there has been no electric supply in the school. It appears that as electric meter was not functional all electric bill were prepared on average basis of 50 units per month sitting in the office without verifying or making any inspection in the school to find out whether there is any electric supply in the school or not. 
13. In said view of the matter, the Commission is not inclined to interfere in the order passed by District Consumer Commission, Khagaria. However, compensation amount is reduced from Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- and rate of interest is reduced from 9% p.a to 6% p.a.
14. The appeal is accordingly, disposed of.

(Ram Prawesh Das)                                       Md. Shamim Akhtar                                                                  (Sanjay Kumar,J)

       Member                                                   Judicial Member                                                                             President

Md. Fariduzzama