- (1.) The writ petition has been filed by Kanpur Electricity Supply Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "licencee") represented through its Managing Director and Executive Engineer, Electricity Urban Distribution Division, Nawabganj, KESCO, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as "EE Nawabganj") assailing the order dated 30.11.2010 of Electricity Ombudsman rejecting representation of the petitioner and confirming the order dated 2.2.2010 of Electricity Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as "CGRF, Kanpur").
(2.) The facts in brief giving rise to the present dispute may be stated in brief as under:
(3.) The respondent No. 4, Association for Prevention of Blindness U.P. Kanpur Dr. Jawahar Lal Rohatgi Smarak Netra Chikitsalaya Sarvodaya Nagar, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as "Consumer") is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act running an Eye Hospital at Kanpur. It is said that Society is a charitable institution working for removal of blindness for which it receives grant from the Government, Central and State both, in different heads. It is claimed that it does not charge fees for treatment of poor persons but wherever any fee is charged, it is either equivalent or less than the fee chargeable in Government hospitals. It had an electric connection and rates of electricity charged from it were governed by tariff schedule LMV-4(A) till 29.11.2001. Thereafter the licencee and EE Nawabganj raised bills to the respondent No. 4 according to the rate schedule LMV-4 (B) which was applicable for institution which are not charitable and not governed by LMV 4(A). It claimed that by raising incorrect bills under the rate schedule not applicable to a consumer like petitioner the licencee had realized an excess amount of Rs. 4,02,547/- during the period of 30.11.2001 to 30.4.2003 and the same is liable to be refunded. It also said that there is a residential colony in the hospital campus of society wherein 65 families are residing. The electricity consumption in the said Colony was liable to be billed as per domestic rates i.e. tariff LMV-I but this was also charged on higher rates for the period of 30.11.2001 to 28.2.2009 and excess sum of Rs. 6,67,449/- was realized from the respondent No. 4, which should be refunded. The consumer/respondent also demanded interest on the entire excess amount charged, as above, besides cost of litigation and such other relief as CGRF my deem fit.;