Heard learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondent.
2. This appeal is filed U/S-15 of erstwhile Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.
3. The case of the complainant, in nutshell is that the complainant had a industrial unit in the name and style as Modern Plastics at Ananda Bazar,Talcher Thermal. It is alleged inter-alia that he has taken electricity to the said industrial unit on 12.03.1999 from the OP with contract load of 13.5 KW. After obtaining electricity the complainant received the bills basing on the load factor basis from time to time. He was paying the meter rent. The OP claimed the meter rent @ Rs.250/- per month upto January,2000 and thereafter claim meter rent @ Rs.100.00 per month till May,2000 inspite of the fact that the meter was supplied by the complainant. Subsequently the complainant found there was manipulation in the documents to show the meter was supplied by the OP. The complainant is entitled to get back the meter rent taken by the OP from the complainant. It is further case of the complainant that State Government has exempted the electricity duty as per the terms of the Industrial Promotion Policy,1996 for a period of 5 years from the date of connection to the unit. But the OP knowing the said provision well charged the electricity duty on each month upto March,2001. The complainant lost the benefit of rebate. Further the OP has charged delayed payment @ 2 % per month on the over due payment. The complainant requested the Op for correction of the bill, but it was not acceded to. After several request the amount of Rs.8130.00 till August,2003 out of the electricity duty Rs.11,000/- was refunded but it was adjusted in the current bill of the complainant but the rest amount was not adjusted. But the meter rent amounting to Rs.3,061.00 was not refunded to the complainant. So, the complaint was filed.
4. The OP filed written version stating the meter was supplied by the Op for which they have charged the meter rent. Further they have averred that the bill was unpaid for which the delayed payment charge was to be paid by the complainant. They admitted that the complainant was exempted from payment of the electricity duty as per the terms of the Industrial Promotion Policy,1996 for which delayed payment charges were taken. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
5. After hearing both the parties, learned District Forum passed the following order:-
Xxxx xxxx xxxx
“ The opp.party is directed to return the electricity duty, meter rent and delayed payment charges and Rs.3,000.00(Rupees Three thousand) for mental agony and harassment and Rs.1,000.00(Rupees One thousand) towards litigation expenses to the complainant within a month from the date of receipt of this order.
The case is allowed accordingly.”
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is illegal and improper because they have not appreciated the matter properly. According to him Annexure-A to the written version clearly states that the meter has been supplied by GRIDCO. Since, the meter has been supplied by OP, the complainant is bound to pay the meter rent as per OERC Code,1998. He further submitted that in the year 2003 the bill has been revised by the OP and there is no any deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Therefore, he submitted to set-aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.
7. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant, perused the DFR and impugned order.
8. It is admitted fact that the complainant is a consumer under the OP. It is admitted fact that the complainant has obtained the electricity to his Industrial unit from the OP. It is also admitted fact that in August,2003 Rs.8130/- has been adjusted in the current bill out of outstanding of Rs.11,000/- as per the impugned order. The only question arises whether the meter rent for Rs.3061/- is to be refunded or not.
9. The complainant alleged that he has supplied the meter. In order to prove his case he has produced the money receipt for purchase of the meter from Delhi. Learned counsel for OP disputed the said bill. We have gone through the bill and found that the meter has been purchased from Ravi Electricals,Chandni Chowk,Delhi. There is no other document to substantiate that the meter alongwith the bills issued after it is purchased. On the otherhand we found from the Annexure-
A that in pursuance of the agreement between the parties, the mater has been supplied by the GRIDCO and supplied to complainant. When the document in question of the complainant is doubtful, and there is clear test report of the meter available on record showing supply of the meter by the OP, we are of the view that the bill for meter reading is justifiable. This aspect has not been considered by the learned District Forum in their impugned order. It also appears that the delayed payment charges have been levied. Such payment is also admissible as the complainant has paid the bill in causing delay.
10. In view of aforesaid circumstances, we are of the view that the question of refund of electricity duty does not arise because it has been adjusted in August,2003.
11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not agree with the finding of the learned District Forum and same is not sustainable in law, it is set-aside.
Appeal stands allowed. No cost
Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet or webtsite of this Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission.
DFR be sent back forthwith.
