- (1.) IN this petition filed by the Consumer Protection Council, Ahmedabad with the Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd, and the Coal INdia Ltd. , as Respondents, the main grievances voiced by the registered consumer association concern the method of fixation of the charges for electricity supplied by the First Respondent company, the inadequacy of the rate of interest allowed by the company on security deposits, the alleged illegality involved in the levy of fixed charge and energy charge separately from the consumers, the alleged defective condition of the meters that are affixed at the premises of the various consumers by the Respondent company and the alleged uneconomic and inefficient manner in which the First Respondent company is conducting its affairs in the matter of generation, supply and distribution of electricity, more particularly with reference to the losses in transmission and distribution and generally with reference to the cost incurred by them in the generation of electrical energy.
(2.) TWO of the aforementioned points are fully covered by us in the order passed by us in a similar petition filed by another consumer association, Akhil Bharatiya Grahak Panchayat, as against the First Respondent-Original Petition No. 14 of 1989- In that order, we have recorded our conclusion that the challenge raised against the levy of fixed charge and fuel adjustment charge are devoid of merits. Coming now to the complaint regarding the defective nature of the meters affixed to the premises of the consumers by the First Respondent company, we are assured by Shri Thakore the learned Advocate General of Gujarat, who appeared on behalf of the company that any consumer having a complaint about the incorrect functioning of the meter may send a written complaint to the Zonal Officer of the company in the concerned zone and within a period not exceeding one month from the date of receipt of such complaint, steps will be taken to have the meter properly tested and to rectify or replaced the meter in case it is found to be defective in any respect. We consider that the assurance given by the learned Advocate General of Gujarat is sufficient to set right whatever grievances the consumers may have on this account. As regards the rate of interest that is being paid by the company on the security deposits collected from the consumers we are unable to agree with the counsel for the petitioner that the rate of 12% allowed by the company is unfair or inadequate. It was urged before us that when a consumer is in arrears the company charges interest on such arrears at the rate of 18% per annum. This allegation is refuted by the council for the First Respondent. Even if it is assumed that the rate of interest charged by the company on arrears covered by unpaid bills is higher than what the company allows on the security deposits, it cannot be said that such a course of action is illegal because there is always a penal and deterrent element involved in the charge of interest on such arrears the intention being that consumers may thereby be prompted to pay their dues in time. Much argument was advanced before us by the counsel for the petiti-ioner on the question of transmission and distribution losses that are being suffered by the company, the contention being that were it not for such losses it would have been possible for the company to reduce the tariff rates made applicable to consumers for the supply of electrical energy. The learned Advocate General drew our attention to the statement contained in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the First Respondent that transmission and distribution losses as computed in the complaint filed by the petitioner are really computed on a wholly erroneous basis and that on a correct computation, the transmission and distribution loss will come only to a much lesser figure. He also pointed out that the comparative figures for similar electric supply undertakings disclose higher transmission and distribution losses than those of the First Respondent company. Whatever that may be, we consider that we can safely accept the assurance given by the learned Advocate General that the First Respondent company will, in future, take every possible step to bring down to the minimum extent possible, the transmission and distribution losses suffered by it and also to detect as well as to prevent thefts of electricity. We record this assurance. No other point arises in the case and, accordingly, this petition is disposed of with the above observations. . ;