RAJNANDGAON Vs. FATTECHAND BAGDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has arisen out of the order, dated 16.03.2011 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (hereinafter called District Forum for short), passed in Complaint Case No.29/2010, whereby the appellant herein, has been directed not to insist upon the letter dated 22.01.2010 issued by it to the complainant/respondent and the bill of Rs.56,441/ - has been quashed by the District Forum and appellant has been directed to refund the amount of 28,220/ -, which was deposited under protest by the complainant, id7350765 pdfMachine by Broadgun Software - a great PDF writer! - a great PDF creator! - along with amount of Rs.1,780/ - as compensation for mental agony and cost of litigation, along with interest 9% p.a. w.e.f. 25.05.2010 till date of payment.

(2.) IN nut shell, the facts of the case are that complainant/respondent was consumer of the appellant and availed services of electricity supply for the purpose of running Pramod Poha Mill, where he prepare Murra and Poha. It has been asserted in the complaint that the complainant was regularly paying the bills of demand for use of electricity, but on 22.01.2010 a letter was issued referring earlier notice dated 05.09.2005, an amount of Rs.56,441/ - was demanded by the appellant from the complainant on the basis of some audit report. Then it was asked by the complainant from the appellant, as to for which year the demand is pertaining and then it was informed that the demand was pertaining to supply of electricity in the year 1995 -96 and for that demand, audit was conducted in the year 2005 and then the bill was issued, which was protested, then again the bill in question, was issued as appellant was insisting on payment of bill and was threatening to disconnect the supply of electricity, so complainant paid under the protest an amount of Rs.28,220/ - and then supply was restored by the appellant. In the consumer complaint, it has been alleged that conduct of the appellant comes in the category of deficiency in service and so consumer complaint was filed before the District Forum.

(3.) IN reply, the appellant has averred that on the basis of Audit Report, the demand was made from the complainant/respondent, which was appropriate and no deficiency in service, has been committed by it in making such demand. It has also been averred that earlier in the year 2005, same amount was demanded from the complainant and at that time reply of demand notice was sent by the complainant, but thereafter no further steps were taken, so the appellant was under the impression that ultimately complainant will pay that amount, but when same was not paid for quite sometime, then again demand notice was sent. It has been stated that earlier in the year 1998, the load of electricity supply was increased from 40 HP to 80 HP and new meter was installed and as per rules of the Electricity Board, when load is more than 50 HP, then commercial consumption is treated as one and half times to two times and bills are issued accordingly. The matter which was installed in the premises of the complainant was having capacity of C.T.150/5 Ampere. and so multiplying factor was 1.5 and so demand was required to be raised one and half time, then the actual reading, but by mistake without applying the multiplier, the bills were issue, which were corrected later on and remaining demand was made and making such demand, no deficiency in service was committed by the appellant and so complaint was not maintainable.