PROTON STEELS LIMITED, RAJGANGPUR Vs. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL; EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL; SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICE, ELECTRICAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), by the Complainant, namely, M/s Proton Steels Ltd. , a body Corporate, is to the order dated 29. 0 2016, passed by the Odisha State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Cuttack (for short "the State Commission") in First Appeal No. 906/1997. By the impugned order, while overturning the order dated 26. 09. 1997, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sundargarh II, at Rourkela (for short "the District Forum") in Consumer Dispute Case No. 176/97, the State Commission has allowed the Appeal, preferred by the Opposite Parties in the Complaint, the Respondents herein. By the said order, the District Forum had partly allowed the Complaint and directed the Respondents (the State Electricity Board) to raise a revised bill against the Complainant factory, for the supply of electricity to it, on the basis of 15 KVA load, actual consumption charges for the disputed period, i. e. from 0 08. 1994 to 15. 09. 1994, for payment by the Complainant, within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order.

(2.) Succinctly put, the facts giving rise to the present Revision Petition, are that: the Petitioner/Complainant is a small scale industry, covered under the Industrial Policy Resolution, 1989, declared and published by the Industries Department, Government of Odisha on 01. 1 1989. Its plant at Rajgangpur, District Sundargarh, Odisha, was being supplied electricity by the Odisha State Electricity Board (now known as "GRIDCO"), with a sanctioned load of 445 KVA. Since the electric meter of the Complainant was not working since November, 1993, average bills were being raised and paid regularly. In the months of August/September, 1994, the Complainant Company was required to suspend its production for the purpose of overhauling and major maintenance of its plant. Accordingly, vide its letter dated 30. 07. 1994, the Complainant intimated to Respondent/Opposite Party No. 3 that it would be using load of 15 KVA between the period 01. 08. 1994 to 15. 09. 1994. When the Complainant received the bill for the month of August, 1994, the same was found to be on average basis, as in the preceding months, without taking into consideration the fact that production in its plant was suspended during the aforesaid period. On protest, the Respondents sought for production details for the said month and earlier period, which were furnished by the Complainant on 21. 09. 1994. The bill, issued for the month of September, 1994, was also found to be on average basis. At this stage, after verifying the production figures of the Complainant with the Central Excise records and finding them to be correct, Respondent/Opposite Party No. 2 asked the Complainant to furnish the said details for the subsequent months as well. According to the Complainant, on verification of the said details, the said Respondent was satisfied about the suspension of the production and, accordingly, in order to have a formal approval and correction in the bills in question, Respondent No. 2 forwarded the matter to Respondent/Opposite Party No. 1. In the meanwhile, the Complainant continued paying all the bills raised, except for the two bills in question. With no positive response from the Respondents in sight and faced with the threat of disconnection of electricity supply, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents on the aforesaid counts, the afore-noted Complaint came to be filed before the District Forum, wherein the Complainant prayed for a direction to the Respondents to revise the bills in question and not to disconnect the electricity connection till the disposal of the case, and further to pay it a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the mental agony suffered on account of the afore-noted conduct of the Respondents.

(3.) Upon notice, the Respondents contested the Complaint, by filing their Written Version. While admitting that the meter was not working, the Respondents denied that the bills raised were on the higher side. It was pleaded that the bills had been issued on average consumption, on the basis of preceding consecutive three months, as per Para 17(f)(ii) of Orissa State Electricity Board (General Conditions of Supply) Regulations, 1995 (for short "1995 Regulations"). In this way, consumption for the months of June to August 1993 was taken into consideration, as during the month of September 1993, the factory remained idle and during the month of October 1993, power supply was disconnected from 04. 10. 1993 to 20. 10. 199 On 25. 09. 1997, i. e. after a gap of 3 years and 6 months, the Complainant approached the Respondents, stating that the average bills were on the higher side, which was not acceptable. It was pleaded that the reduced supply could have been allowed if the plant or the premises was unfit, wholly or substantially, due to breakdown by natural calamity, fire, earthquake etc. by giving seven days notice in writing, as per Regulation-47 of 1995 Regulations but such proof was not submitted by the Complainant for having the supply reduced for the annual maintenance; the meter was defective and could not be replaced due to non-availability of such type of meters; the Complainant took advantage of the said situation and applied for reduction of supply to 15 KVA, as per his application dated 30. 07. 1994, which was received in the office of the Respondents on 0 09. 1994 (it should be 0 08. 1994); the Complainant had not given seven days advance notice for reduction in supply of power and it was only on 0 08. 1994 that the Complainant had approached the Respondents office; the said intimation not being as per Regulation-47, the supply could not be reduced and, hence, the bills for the period in question were raised on average basis. It was alleged that the Complainant was withholding payment of nearly Rs. 3,00,000/- by raising the said dispute.