NIRANJAN M MEHTA Vs. AHMEDABAD ELECTRICITY CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this complaint under Sections 2 (1) (c), 2 (1) (d), 2 (1) (g) and (6) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 , the complainant prays for directing the opponent to reconnect the power supply to the factory of the complainant as before not requiring the complainant to submit R. A. Form and also to change the non-functioning apparatus of the main service of system at their own cost; to recommend the disconnected original sanctioned power supply within one week after receiving the report of the complainant in writing of the completion of the repairing of the factory and machinery, also requiring the opponent to pay Rs.25,000 by way of compensation for mental torture with interest; also requiring the opponent to pay Rs.1,75,000 for reparation of the factory and machinery and electric wiring also requiring the opponent to pay Rs.3,00,000 towards loss of business and employment to the employees with interest and cost of the complaint.

(2.) Facts alleged in the complaint shortly stated are that the complainant is a small scale industrial unit having its registered office and factory at Naroda, Ahmedabad; that the complainant is engaged in the business of manufacturing of plastic material and its sales throughout India and is a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ; that the opponent is giving service of supplying electricity in the city of Ahmedabad; that the complainant hired services of opponent in connection with supply of energy; that on account of deficiency in service the complainant had made complaint under the provisions of the Act; the electricity supply service was actually disconnected on 6.4.1987; that the complainant requested the opponent to check up their records to ascertain the energy load which was reduced from 52 horse power to 10 horse power from 20.4.1987; that the complainant had paid Rs.2,170 on 4.4.1987; that the complainant was required to pay Rs.2,086 for the bill; that the complainant paid excess amount of Rs.84; that the complainant had paid every charge of bill on 4.3.1987 which was to be paid on 20.4.1987. Yet, electricity connection was cut off. Under the circumstances, the complainant had to close the establishment. Notice and demand of Rs.1,134 is misconceived and based on wrong notion; that there was nothing due and payable by the complainant; that the unit of the complainant was never inspected by the opponent. The supply was never restored or replaced; that for no fault of the complainant, opponent discontinued the electric supply and removed the fuse; that no adverse action could have been taken against the complainant by the opponent without service report of the memorandum. This is a case of hiring of service for consideration under Sec.2 (1) (d) (2) of the Consumer Protection Act; that without giving sufficient notice and reasonable opportunity, the electric connection is disconnected by the opponent; that considerable loss has been caused to the complainant on account of the negligence and deficiency in service in rendering service to the complainant. On these allegations, the complainant prays for the reliefs aforestated.

(3.) The opponent filed affidavit-in-reply vide Exh.7 and refuted the claim of the complainant inter alia contending that this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the grievance sought to be made in the complaint does not answer description of the dispute defined under the Consumer Protection Act and, therefore, the complaint is not maintainable. In the alternative it has been averred that the complaint is not filed by the complainant in his personal capacity and, therefore, not tenable. It is denied that the complainant paid Rs.84 in excess than the bill amount; that the billing summary of the complainant showed that it has always paid the bill either late or short amount than required for the period under review and, therefore, the averments are denied; that the electricity power was disconnected because every time there was default in making the payment or late/short payment was made. Notice of demand of Rs.1,134 was made through the Advocate of the opponent on 30.5.1995 and Rs.1,200 were paid on 17.6.1995 as per the averments in para 7 of the complaint; that the premises was found closed from March 1987, therefore it is apprehended that the said industry was not a running unit. It has been clarified in the notice that necessary credit has already been given to the complainant on 17.8.1987 and 16.9.1987 for the bill which was raised on 20.4.1987 and the consumer has not replied the same. The total amount due and outstanding from the complainant was Rs.2,086+1134=3120 and, therefore, notice of demand was correct; that the compensation demanded by the complainant is based on the assumption of happening of future event and even otherwise it is on higher side. It is denied that the Company has not given notice to the consumer before disconnection as every bill (which were red bills) dated 4.3.1987 which was due on 23.3.1987 was with arrears and notice for disconnection which the consumer has paid on 4.4.1987 and, therefore, the consumer has paid the same after 10 days of the last date of payment and under the circumstances, it was sufficient notice; that the complaint of the complainant is time-barred inasmuch as the dispute in the subject-matter had arisen on 6.4.1987 and the first complaint in this regard before the Commission was filed in the year 1997 i. e. after 10 years of time; that complaint No.106 of 1997 filed before the Hon'ble Commission was dismissed on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction vide its order dated 17.9.1999 and the complainant was directed to file the same before the Consumer Forum, however, the complainant has again repeated the same mistake in filing Complaint No.1060 of 1999 and the Hon'ble Forum vide its order dated 4.1.2000 directed to file the same before the State Commission. On these averments, the opponent has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.