Karnataka

Bidar

CC/3/2016

The President Kanika Parameshwari Education Society. Humanabad - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Asst. Executive Engineer Humnabad - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjay Patil

22 Aug 2017

ORDER

 

 

 

::BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL FORUM, AT BIDAR::

                                                               C.C. No.03/2016

                                                                          Date of filing: 28.01.2016

                                                                   Date of disposal:22 .08.2017

 

P R E S E N T:-    

                              (1) Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata,                                                                                                                                 B.A., LL.B.,

                                                                                                President

 

                              (2) Shri. Shankrappa (Halipurgi),

                                                                                 B.A.LL.B.,

                                                                                           Member.

 

                                                                              

 

COMPLAINANT/S:           The President, Kanika Prameshwari Education       

                                           Society,(Reg.No.57/87-88), Nagreshwar School,

                                                Humanabad, Represented by Nagaraj
                                           S/o Gopalrao Raghoji, R/o Humanabad,
                                            Dist. Bidar, Karnataka State.

 

                   (By Sri. Sanjay Kumar S.Patil, Adv.)

 

                                                              VERSUS

 

OPPONENT/S:       1)        The Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical)

                                                O & M Sub-Division, GESCOM,

                                                Humanabad, Dist. Bidar,

                                                Karnataka State-585330.

 

                                    2)        The Executive Engineer (Electrical)

                                                O & M Sub-Division, GESCOM,

                                                Humanabad, Dist. Bidar,

                                                Karnataka State-585330.

 

                                             (By Sri. R.K.Ganure, Adv.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

::   J UD G M E N T  ::

 

By Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata, President.

 

      The complainant is before this Forum alleging deficiency of service in the part of the O.P by filing a complaint U/s.12 of the C.P. Act., 1986, attributing deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.  

 

2.         The sum total of the case of the complainant is as hereunder:

                        The complainant is running educational institution under the name and style of Kanika Prameshwari Education Society since from
1988-89.   The complainant is consumer of O.Ps since long back, vide R.R.No.5731, and the said connection was obtained for the purpose of said school as non-commercial.  The complainant was paying electricity charges regularly.   The O.Ps surprisingly issued letter dated 28.8.2015 demanding Rs.30,618/- as BBC (Back Billing Amount) stating, misuse of tariff LT-2(a) and LT 2(b) i.e., domestic to Non-domestic.  Against this, the complainant’s school submitted representation stating inability to pay the demand bill, and school did not collect any fees from the students as the school is Aided and there is no source of income for school maintenance.  That apart, the O.P again on dated 23.9.2015 issued letter demanding BBC amount or else the amount of BBC would appear in the regular electricity bill.   The act of O.Ps are illegal and it will lead to negligence in service.  Further, the O.Ps threatened that, if the BBC amount would not paid, within a week the connection would be disconnected.  If the O.Ps disconnected the electricity connection, the students will face difficulties.  The attitude of O.Ps shows deficiency in their service.   It is submitted that, the educational society is functioning  non-commercial.   The complainant is a public Aided School and electricity connection has been taken in the school premises for the purposes of electrification in the school for running fans, lifting water etc., is purely domestic.   The complainant is a consumer as defined under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.   Hence, the complaint for setting aside the demand bill dated 28.8.2015 and reconnection of electricity connection.

 

 

 

 

3.          The Opponent entering into defence on receipt of Court notice, filed version denying the contents of complaint, and inter alia contended that, the electricity connection under R.R.No.5731 provided to the institution and the complainant shall have to pay the due amount of arrears as per the provisions of the GESCOM and as per detailed bills issued to the complainant as per Govt. Order, Circular, Act and Rules of GESCOM company and electricity rates 2014.   As per the provision, arrears of bill was issued to the complainant.  The said education society using electricity which comes under the commercial purpose as per circulars, Act and procedures and pray to dismiss the complaint surprisingly.  Though stated, such copy of the circular was never produced.  The opponent though filed an evidence affidavit adopting copy and paste procedure and has not addressed arguments effectively.  A few documents were produced, replica of the complainants’ documents. 

 

 

 

4.         Considering the rival contentions of the feuding parties, the following points arise for our consideration:-

 

1. Was the demand of back billing as per Ex.P.1/Ex.R.1 was in fairness in the part of the opponent?
2. What order?

 

 

 

5.         Our answers to the points stated above are as follows:-

 

1. In the negative.

           2. As per final orders owing to the following:

 

 

 

 

:: REASONS ::

 

6.         Point No.1 :-The complaint herein is an educational institution receiving grant-in-aid from the Govt. Of Karnataka as per document Ex.P.8, which fact remains undisputed.  In initio, the complainant institution was provided with electricity connection bearing R.R.No.5731, under the classification LT 2(A), (domestic).  Sometimes thereafter, the Opponent a public utility entity had decided that, private educational institution would be billed under classification LT2(b)- non domestic, which was never informed to the consumer categorically.  The bills used to be got issued under classification LT2 A-1-N and the complainant institution was going on paying the bills.  Neither the Meter reader concerned nor any officer of the Public utility has made any whisper about a different tariff at any point of time as is apparent from the records.  Even as later as in the bill issued on 06.01.2017 (Ex.P.19)  the classification LT2-A1-N remains intact.

 

7.         On 28.08.2015, the opponent waking out of a slumber, realises that, the complainant should be charged tariffs under classification LT-2(b) and got issued a Back billing sheet vide Ex.P.1, which accuses of misuse of tariff LT-2(a) to LT-2(b).  Later, an unholy disconnection of supply of power was resorted to, which was rectified later, we are told.

 

 

 

 

8.         Now, the question remains, would the opponent be held competent to issue such back billing demand on 28.08.2015?  The answer is an emphatic No.  The justification being, all along the opponent issuing bills under category LT-2A-N and receiving the tariffs would be estopped as defined u/s 115 of the Evidence Act to take a different stand detrimental to the interest of the complainant/consumer.  The opponent would be held vicariously liable for the latches, lapses, mis-feasances of its’ employees in not in forming the complainant about the changed billing pattern in its’ circulars.  (sic-not produced at any time).  As a whole the knee-jerk action of the opponent stinks of unfair trade practice as defined in Section 2(1) (r) of the C.P. Act, 1986 and we hold this point accordingly.

 

 

2.         The complainant has relied upon  a decision of the National Commission reported in 2014 (4) CPR 539 (NC)- Delhi Public school through captain Jitender Singh Mann v/s Managing Director/ Chairman and ors, in which it has been held that, an educational institution utilising the electricity connection “cannot be said that electric connection falls with purview of connection  for commercial purpose” interalia.

 

 

9.         Herein but, the situation is quite different and the ratio stated above cannot be applied squarely.  The billing pattern is under LT-2(b)- non domestic use and no fault could be found with opponent, sans their act under “Estoppel in pais”.

 

 

 

10.       Therefore, under the principle of equity, we deprecate the act of back billing by the opponent, answer the point accordingly and proceed to pass the following:

                       

                                         

                                                     ::ORDER:: 

1. The complaint is allowed in part.
2. The order of back billing vide Ex.P1/Ex.R.1 is hereby quashed.
3. The opponent is directed to charge the complainant up to 28.08.2015 under the classification LT-2(A) and under the changed classification LT-2(b) thereafter;
4. Payments made in the interim period by the complainant to be adjusted accordingly.
5. There would be no order as to compensation or costs;
6. Four weeks time granted to comply this order.

 

   

(Typed to our dictation then corrected, signed by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this 22^nd  day of August-2017).

 

 

   Sri. Shankrappa H.                                             Sri. Jagannath Prasad                                  

Member.                                                                President.                                                                                         

                                                                         

 

 

 

 

Documents produced by the complainant

1. Ex.P.1-  copy of back billing sheet.
2. Ex.P.2– copy of intimation date: 23.09.2015 by opponent to 
                   complainant.
3. Ex.P.3 to P.5- Electricity bills (copies).
4. Ex.P.6 to P.7—Cash receipt (copy)
5. Ex.P.8- Copy of Grant-in-aid sanction of State Govt.
6. Ex.P9- Sanction letter of Humnabad T.M.C. (copy)
7. Ex.P.10- Copy of R.S.D. No.576/04-05.
8. Ex.P.11- Copy of sketch map.
9. Ex.P.12-Copy of Registration certificate of the complainant
                  organisation.
10. Ex.P.13- Acknowledged copy of the representation of complainant 
                    date: 03.02.2016.
11. Ex.P.14- Another acknowledged copy of the representation of the 
                    complainant date: 05.02.2016.
12. Ex.P.15 to Ex.P.20- Copies of electricity bills.
13. Ex.P.21- Money receipt (copy)
14. Ex.P.22 to P.27- Money receipts(copy).

             

 Document produced by the Opponent.

 

1. Ex.R.1-  Back biling sheet (copy) replica of Ex.P1.
2. Ex.R.2- Intimation to complainant date: 23.09.2015. (copy).

 

Sri. Shankrappa H.                                             Sri. Jagannath Prasad                                  

       Member.                                                                      President.