Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 308 (CHH)

SURYAKANT GUPTA v. CSEB

2006-05-16

R.S.AWASTHI, V.K.AGARWAL, VEENA MISRA

body2006
ORDER V.K. Agarwal, President :- 1. This appeal, under section 15 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against the order dated 30.5.05 in complaint No.42/03 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rajnandgaon (hereinafter called the 'District Forum' for short) by the impugned order partial relief to the complainant regarding concessional rate and rebate in. the form of cash rebate applicable to the consumers consuming excess of electricity has been granted : far a portion of such excess consumption, but his prayer for similar concession being given for the excess consumption of electricity in the month of December, 200 I has not been allowed by the District Forum. 2. The complainant is a Industrial Unit having 2 different units described as Unit-1 and Unit-2 at Rajnandgaon. The complainant indisputably is the consumer of the respondent electricity Board (CSEB) and has claimed concessional rate of electricity charges as initially provided by the respondent's circular dated 8.6.01. The said circular appears to have been issued in pursuance of declaration by the Chief Minister of the State that electricity at concessional rate will be provided and cash incentive in that connection would be given to the consumers utilizing energy in excess of the average consumption. The scale of concession etc. has also been given in the said circular dt. 8.6.01. It is not in dispute that the complainant's Unit No.1 consumed excess energy to the tune of 14899 units for September, 2001. So far as Unit No.2 of the complainant is concerned, excess energy consumed for the month of August, 2001 was to the tune of 17628 units while excess energy consumed for the month of December, 2001 for Unit-2 was to the extent of 11076 units. The complainant therefore, claimed concessional rate by way of cash incentive for such excess energy consumption totaling 43603 units in all @ Rs. 1/- per unit. Aggrieved by the refusal of payment as above, the complainant preferred complaint before the District Forum, claiming refund of Rs.43,603/- as also compensation and cost. 3. The complaint was resisted by the respondent. In the written version shelter has been mainly taken by the respondents under the circular dated 12.9.2001 and 23.11.2001. By circular dated 12.9.01 it was directed that the concessional rate as above would be available to the consumers, on an application by them for availing said concession. 3. The complaint was resisted by the respondent. In the written version shelter has been mainly taken by the respondents under the circular dated 12.9.2001 and 23.11.2001. By circular dated 12.9.01 it was directed that the concessional rate as above would be available to the consumers, on an application by them for availing said concession. By the subsequent circular dated 23.11.01 the earlier directions were modified and it was directed thereby that concessional rate till 12.9.01 would be available without application; while concessional rate thereafter i.e. after 12.9.01 shall be available to the consumers making application therefor. 4. The District Forum in the impugned order referring to the above circular though granted relief to the complainant regarding excess consumption by Unit-2 for the month of August, 2001. However, in view of circular dated 12,9.01 and 23.11.01 refused to give concession rate for excess consumption for Unit-2 for the month of December, 2001. Indisputably the said excess consumption for the month of December, 2001 was 11076 units. 5. The only dispute in the present appeal, raised by the complainant/appellant is regarding cash incentive for excess consumption of energy for the month of December, 2001 by Unit-2 i.e. for 11076 units. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the aforementioned circulars were not brought to the notice of the complainant therefore his claim under the original declaration by circular dated 8.6.01 in which the unequivocal permission was made by the respondent for granting concessional, rate to the excess consumption, could not be prejudiced, by issuance of such subsequent circulars. Respondent's counsel submitted that earlier concession accorded by circular dt. 8.6.2001 was curtailed by subsequent circulars dated 12.9.01 and 23.11.01. It was also submitted that the said circulars were duly communicated to the complainant/appellant and other consumers. 6. However, we find that there is no material to substantiate the above contentions of the appellant. There is no material on record to show that the circulars were ever brought to the notice of the complainant/ appellant: This being so, concessional rate earlier granted by circular dated 8.6.01 could not have been unilaterally withdrawn and the same could not be subjected to certain pre-conditions as has been sought to be done by the respondent by issuing subsequent circulars. Obviously, therefore, it appears that the complainant having indisputably utilized the excess energy in the month of December, 2001 in its Unit No.2, was also entitled to concession at rate in regard thereto. 7. Learned counsel for appellant also submits that concessional rate as above ought to have been granted to him in 2001 itself and the amount of cash incentive should have been paid to him in 2001. It was contended that since the amount was not paid, compensation should also be awarded to the complainant/appellant, in that regard. 8. We find substance in the submission as above. The appellant have been denied cash incentive by way of concessional rate by the respondent for a considerable period of about 5 years. In the circumstances, since cash incentive Rs.43,023 has not been paid by the respondent to the complainant/ appellant for a period of 5 years; hence, the complainant had been put to suffer rigors of litigation for 6 years, and was thus subjected to mental harassment and financial loss. In the circumstances we consider it just and proper to award compensation to the tune of Rs.30,000/-. 9. Accordingly this appeal is allowed. Impugned order is modified. It is directed that respondent shall pay to the complainant/appellant Rs. 43,603/- being the cash incentive by way of concessional rate as also Rs.30,000/- as compensation. Thus total amount of Rs. 73,603/- rounded to Rs.73,600/- is payable by the respondents to the complainant/appellant. Learned counsel for respondent submits that respondent has deposited Rs.32,527 in the District Forum in compliance of the impugned order. Respondent shall be entitled to adjustment of the said amount from the amount payable under this order. The amount as above shall be payable within a period of 2 months from the date of this order, failing which it shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of default. Respondents shall also pay to the complainant! appellant cost of this litigation which includes that of the complaint, as well as of this appeal, and is quantified at Rs.3,000/- (Three Thousand). Appeal Allowed.