Mrs. Devinderjit Dhatt, Member:
1. This appeal received by transfer from Haryana State Commission, under the orders of Honble National Commission has been filed against order dated 21.6.2001 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal in complaint case No. 1281 of 1999. The contextual facts in brief are as under.
2. The respondent/complainant Sh. Atam Parkash is subscriber of electric connection under the agriculture category for a 5 BHP motor vide account No. B-783. It has been averred that charges were levied to the respondent/complainant on the flat rate basis, which as per rate in the revenue estate of Nilokheri is stated to be Rs. 50 per BHP. As per case set up by the complainant the electricity bill for the month of May, 1999 was issued to him charging a rate of Rs. 65 per BHP while the bills for months of June, July and August were issued showing a charge of Rs. 81 per BHP. The applicable rate was enhanced further in bill of September, 1999 as it was @ Rs. 136 per BHP while for the month of October, 1999, Rs. 81 per BHP were charged. The respondent/complainant is aggrieved against the frequent variation in the per BHP charges. It is alleged that the appellant/OP has enhanced in an arbitrary manner and without any notice and the consumer is made to pay the bills as per sweet will of the appellant Board. It is alleged that due to issuance of bills at the varied rates, the OP is guilty of rendering deficient in service. It is contended by the complainant that his tariff was to be calculated on the basis of supply for eight hours per day, as other tubewells which were also getting supply from the urban feeders received energy for 24 hours but are being charged for eight hours only. It is also the say of the complainant that he was asked to provide his own meter which he failed to do so due to which the electricity department started charging on the flat rate basis for 10-16 hours per day depending upon the availability and the use of electricity in the area of the complainant. In the prayer clause, a direction has been sought against the OPs to charge him @ Rs. 50 per BHP and to refund the amount received in excess of above rate. Compensation on account of harassment and deficiency has also been prayed for.
3. In the written statement filed on behalf of OP, it is submitted that the supply to the tubewell of the complainant was charged as per tariff applicable on the flat rate calculated on the basis of eight hours supply each day. It is submitted that some tubewells which were given connection from the urban feeders were getting electricity for 24 hours but were charged for eight hours only due to which the appellant department was made to suffer heavy losses and in order to stop such losses, the option to supply electricity on the flat rate basis to the consumers getting energy from the urban feeders was withdrawn vide sale circular No. 18/97 dated 19.6.1997. The OP has alleged that the complainant did not supply the meter to the Board despite notice given to him by putting stamp on his electric bill, however he failed to follow this direction. The OP has submitted that instead of withdrawing the facility of electricity to the complainant, he was charged for 10-16 hours supply per day depending upon the availability and use of power. It is stated that charges levied on the complainant have been as per consumption. The allegations of deficiency in service have been denied.
4. In evidence, the OP filed copy of sale circular No. 18/97, copy of notice dated 5.4.1998 and 7.5.98.
5. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the OPs to charge on the flat rate basis of Rs. 50 per BHP from May, 1999 till installation of meter at the tubewell (which was installed during the pendency of the complaint). The OPs were directed to adjust the amount charged in excess in the future bills.
6. Aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the present appeal has been filed pleading inter alia that the impugned order is unjust, improper, illegal and against the law and facts on record on the ground that the Forum failed to appreciate the provisions of sale circular No. 18/97 as the complainant was given supply from the city feeder from which the electricity supply was for 24 hours. It is submitted by the OP that it stands proved that complainant failed to supply his own meter in spite of notice, due to which he was charged on the basis of 10-16 hours supply daily, the same being subject to the availability and use of the power. The appellant has stated that as per above circular a decision to withdraw the option of flat rate system to the supply for agriculture was taken and a notice to all the consumers by 15.7.1997 was served informing them regarding withdrawal of flat rate applicable prior to the notice dated 15.7.1997. It is further stated by the appellant that in the sale circular above cited, it was also intimated that by the end of August, 1999 the meters are required to be provided by the consumers. The appellant has assailed the impugned order on the ground that the Forum failed to appreciate that the change in the tariff was withdrawn in accordance with the terms of sale circular No. 18/97. It is contended that the Forum further committed an error as it failed to take into account that a notice by putting stamp on the bill was served to the complainant. It is urged by the appellant that since the sale circular No. 18/97 has not been challenged before any Court, the Forum was in error in allowing the complaint and giving relief to the consumer against the terms of sale circular. It is urged by the appellant that bills issued to the consumer have been wrongly quashed, though no penalty has been imposed upon him and the charges have been levied on the basis of actual consumption. It is submitted that as per settled law, no deficiency can be alleged if the consumer is charged on the basis of actual consumption. A prayer has been made to accept the appeal with costs and set aside the impugned order and to grant any other relief which might be deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.
7. Adverting to the merit of appeal, after perusal of pleadings of the parties, record of the case, impugned order and the grounds of appeal, we are of the considered opinion that contention of appellant that the complainants was rightly charged and his grievance is unjustified, is noted to be rejected as the complainant was governed by the tariff of Rs. 50 per BHP. The withdrawal of the option by the appellant Electricity Board on the ground that they were given electricity for longer hours and hence were levied higher charges is unjustified and arbitrary specifically in the face of the fact that no such notice with regard to longer hours of supply and consequent higher rate applicable to them was issued to the respondent/complainant. We concur with the reasoning given by the District Consumer Forum that taking a shield behind the fact that stamp was put on the bills of the consumers with regard to levy of higher charges cannot be deemed as a notice to the consumer. This view of District Forum deserves to be upheld further on the ground that complainant being illiterate farmer, the stamp might not be properly understood or noticed by him. The contention of appellant that as per circular No. 18/97 brought on the file, the decision to withdraw the flat rate system was taken. In the face of fact that the appellant has not been able to demonstrate that any notice as required under the law, informing the complainant that he was going to be governed by the different tariff was brought to his notice, in the absence of which the impugned order holding the imposition being illegal, arbitrary is upheld. We concur with the District Forum that the levy of higher tariff was unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the case. The District Forum rightly considered all the aspects of the matter and has given a reasoned order which does not suffer from any infirmity in application of law or appreciation of facts. The same is upheld in toto and the appeal is dismissed. The appellant/OP is directed to comply with the order of the District Forum within one month from the date of receipt of the order.
8. Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.