TORRENT POWER LIMITED Vs. KEVALCHAND DHANRAJ BHANDARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS both the petitions are interconnected, they are being considered by this common judgement.

(2.) THE short facts of the case in Special Civil Application No. 2525 of 2007 are that, as per the petitioner, on 14. 06. 1996, the electricity connection No. 262670 was checked and it was found that the meter seal was disturbed and therefore, the supply was disconnected. On 17. 06. 1996, the amount of Rs. 15,000/- adhoc was paid and the respondent consumer preferred Complaint No. 413/97 before the Consumer Forum of Ahmedabad City on 28. 05. 1997. In response to the proceedings initiated, the petitioner Electricity Company appeared and filed written statement on 10. 01. 1998. On 09. 08. 2003, the Consumer Forum dismissed the complaint holding that the amount came to be voluntarily paid by the complainant/consumer and as the assessment is pertaining to theft of electricity and as the meter was tampered, the action of the respondent Electricity Company cannot be said as deficiency in service and therefore, the complaint was dismissed. The respondent herein preferred appeal before the State Commission being Appeal No. 610/03 against the said decision of the State Commission after hearing the appellant therein who is the respondent herein (hereinafter he shall be referred to as "the consumer" for the sake of convenience), and respondent therein who is the petitioner herein (hereinafter he shall be referred to as "the Electricity Company" for the sake of convenience), allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Consumer Forum. It deserves to be recorded that the State Commission in the said decision, transferred the matter from the Consumer Forum to District Consumer Forum, Rural, and further directed by fixing the date of hearing before the District Consumer Forum, Rural, on 24. 11. 2004 and the cost of Rs. 1,000/- was to be deposited by the Electricity Company payable to the consumer and the direction was also given to decide the complaint within stipulated time limit. It appears that thereafter, the matter proceeded ex parte before the District Consumer Forum, Rural, and the Electricity Company did not appear at all. The District Consumer Forum, ultimately, on 21. 12. 2004, partly allowed the complaint and directed the Electricity Company to refund the amount of Rs. 15,000/- with interest @ 9% from the date of complaint till recovery or in alternative, the Electricity Company was directed to adjust the amount in the electricity bill and the cost of Rs. 2,500/- was also ordered to be paid. When the consumer initiated the proceedings for execution of the order of the District Consumer Forum, the Electricity Company preferred Appeal on 26. 10. 2005 against the decision of the District Consumer Forum, and as there was delay in preferring the Appeal, the application for condonation of delay was also made being in Appeal No. 740/06. The State Commission in the proceedings of the said Appeal, passed the order on 11. 01. 2007, whereby, while considering the question of delay, it also considered the merits of the matter prima facie and recorded that no evidence was led or was produced on behalf of the Electricity Company and the affidavit of the officer who made the checking or inspection was also not filed and therefore, ultimately, the application for condonation of delay as well as Appeal came to be dismissed and it is under these circumstances, the present petition by the Electricity Company before this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution.

(3.) IN Special Civil Application No. 4084 of 2007, the facts appear to be that on 31. 07. 1997, electricity connection No. 287200 of the consumer who is respondent herein was inspected and seals were found disturbed and the electricity supply was disconnected. As per the Electricity Company, the assessment was made on 01. 08. 1997 of Rs. 1,31,691/- and the consumer made adhoc payment of Rs. 15,000/- on 02. 08. 1997 and electricity supply was reconnected. On 06. 11. 1997, the consumer filed complaint before the Consumer Forum of Ahmedabad City being Complaint No. 1186/97 and claimed refund of an amount of Rs. 15,000/- with interest @ 18% and also the compensation of Rs. 7,500/- and cost of Rs. 5,000/ -. The petitioner Electricity Company in response to the said complaint, appeared and filed the written submission on 01. 08. 1998. The Consumer Forum vide order dated 09. 05. 2003, observed that after the assessment of the theft of electricity and the tampering of the meter, the complainant had voluntarily paid the amount and it is not a case where the payment was made under compulsion and therefore, the complaint was dismissed. It appears that the consumer preferred the Appeal against the decision of the District Forum before the State Commission being Appeal No. 563/03 and the State Commission after hearing the consumer as well as the Electricity Company, allowed the appeal with the observations that the Electricity Company will consider the fact that this is a residential premise and that, even on the basis of the allegations of theft of electricity, further assessment of electricity charges should be made on the basis of the electricity bill issued on the reading from the old replaced meter. It was also observed that if the matter is settled between the parties accordingly, the parties will place the settlement before the learned Forum on or before 28. 03. 2003. It appears that as per the petitioner Electricity Company, without their knowledge, the said complaint came to be transferred to District Forum, Ahmedabad Rural and the District Forum, Ahmedabad Rural, examined the matter on facts and found that the proper procedure is not followed and no details are given as to how the theft of electricity is committed and the tampering of the meter was not accepted and the District Forum found that there is unfair trade practice in recovery of the amount and therefore, by Order dated 09. 05. 2005, it has allowed the complaint and directed for refund of the amount of Rs. 15,000/ -. As per the petitioner, it came to know about the aforesaid decision only when the proceedings for execution were initiated and when it received the notice for execution dated 06. 10. 2006 from the District Forum. As per the petitioner, the reply to the execution application was submitted and at that stage, the petitioner has approached to this Court by preferring the present petition challenging the order of the District Forum.