Appeal case No.1045/2002(HRY)/RBT/1686/2008

Date of decision :6.11.2009

Dakshin Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., through its Sub- Divisional Officer, Maruti Industrial Area, Gurgaon

…Appellant

Versus
M/s Adelco Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. 421, Udyog Vihar, Phase-II, Gurgaon through its authorized representative.
…Respondent

Appeal U/s 15 of Consumer Protection Act,1986 against

order dated 3.1.2002 passed by Consumer Disputes

Redressal Forum- Gurgaon

BEFORE : Hon’ble Mr.Justice Pritam Pal, President

Maj.Gen.S.P.Kapoor (Retd.),Member

Mrs. Neena Sandhu,Member

Present: Sh.Anil Kumar Gahlawat, advocate for appellant.


JUDGMENT

6.11.2009

Justice Pritam Pal, President

1. This appeal by opposite party has been directed against the order dated 3.1.2002 passed by Disputes Consumer Forum-Gurgaon whereby complaint filed by complainant firm M/s Adelco Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. was allowed in the following terms ;

“In the interest of justice we are of the view that the account of the complainant be overhauled as per consumption shown in the period shown by meter from 6/94 to 12/94 and after giving adjustment to the amounts already paid during the disputed period, revised bill be issued without adding any interest or surcharge. The amounts of penalty and its ED added in the disputed bill are quashed and disconnection is stayed till the revised bill is furnished. ”

2. In nutshell, the brief facts of the case are that complainant was having electric connection bearing A/c No.ALS-167 installed at plot No.421,Udyog Vihar-II, Gurgaon. The said premises of the complainant remained closed from January,1995 to August,1995 and thereafter in the month of September,1995 some renovation activities were carried out and as such less electricity was consumed which was duly recorded in the meter and the bills were regularly paid upto Feb.,1996. In the month of March,96 complainant received bill for an amount of Rs.32306/- plus Rs.1271/- on account of less charges for Feb.,96 and further Rs.4189/- as capacitor charges. On making protest by the complainant, the capacitor charges were reduced , however, the amount of Rs.32206/- plus Rs.1271/- was paid by the complainant to avoid disconnection. On 24.2.96 the meter installed at the premises of complainant was burnt and even second meter replaced by OPs was also got burnt on the same day. Then on 29.2.96 the burnt meter was again replaced. In June,96 the connected load was increased to 204 KVs as from that period the factory was being run with full capacity. The bills issued in the month of July,96 were paid by the complainant. The bill for the month of August,96 received by the complainant was for Rs.3,80,443/- out of which Rs.3,20,410/- + Rs.13,329/- were shown as sundry charges which according to the complainant were illegal and arbitrary. The complainant requested OP to accept the current consumption charges only and also submitted demand draft of Rs.46704/- in favour of OP but the same was not accepted. Hence, complainant filed complaint before the District Consumer Forum.

3. On the other hand, the case of OP before the District Forum was that the meter installed on 4.6.95 was defective and the same was replaced on 31.1.96 and again it was replaced in March,1996. The account of the complainant for the period from 6/95 to 1/96 was overhauled on the basis of average consumption of 2/96 to 4/96 and the amount of Rs.3,33,739/- was correctly charged.

4. After hearing counsel for the parties, the District Consumer Forum allowed the complaint as indicated in the opening part of this judgment. This is how feeling aggrieved, opposite party had filed appeal before the Haryana State Consumer commission which has now been transferred to this Commission under the directions of Hon’ble National Commission.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the file carefully. It is contended on behalf of appellant/OP that no penalty was imposed upon the complainant but he was issued bill of Rs.320410/- + ED of Rs.13329/- after overhauling his account for the period from 6/95 to 1/96 on the basis of average consumption charges as recorded by the meter during 2/96 to 4/96 and as such complainant was liable to pay the electricity duty and other charges. As observed by the learned District Consumer Forum, the factory of the complainant remained closed from 1/95 to 8/95 and new management came into existence after 20.2.96 when new certificate of incorporation was issued and licence under Central Excise Rules was also obtained on 15.11.96. The connected load was also got increased from 37 KVA to 204 KVA in February,1996 as demand notice for additional security was issued on 23.2.96 requiring the complainant to deposit Rs.75000/-. Thus, from Feb.96 the production activities had picked up and as such the consumption recorded during 2/96 to 4/96 could not be made basis for overhauling the account of complainant for the period when the factory was lying closed. Further during the months of Sep. 95 to December,95 complainant was billed for the units of 797, 890 and 2611 respectively and during June,95 to Jan.,96 complainant paid Rs.2263/- Rs.2263/- Rs.2308/-, Rs.2401/-, Rs.1914/-, Rs.5581/- and Rs.2338/- respectively despite the fact that there was no consumption during the said period. The OP has not produced any record to show that the factory was in operation but the meter was dead/defective or slow. The new mete was installed in 2/96 but its average consumption could not be made basis for the purpose of overhauling the account because connected load at that time had been enhanced.

6. We have perused the impugned order and other material brought on file and find that the order dated 3.1.2002 passed by the District Consumer Forum is well reasoned and justified in the given facts and circumstances. We concur with the reasoning given by the District Forum and hold that there is no force in the appeal. Consequently, the same is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to record room.