//
you're reading...
legal issues

Electricity not supplied properly with full energy caused business loss to the factory and claimed loss at Rs.4 lakhas and odd. District forum dismissed. State forum granted 2 lakhas and others. Their Lordship partly allowed the revision partly removing other expenses- The grouse of the complainants is that they did not get the full electricity and the electricity supplied to them was inadequate and insufficient to run the factory. However, thereafter, the request of the complainants was acceded and the full electricity was given after 02-02-2000. The complainants hired generator to run some of the machines to cope with the urgent supply orders. In the complaint it is submitted that they have suffered a loss of Rs.4,98,024/-. = The petitioner himself admits that the electricity supply of the premises of the complainants remain uninterrupted as alternate measure was made for supply of electricity. It was also not denied that the complainants had to hire another generator. Respondents/complainants have claimed hire charges at Rs.26,500/-, repairing charges of generator at Rs.28,500/- and amount spent on purchase of diesel oil, lubricants, etc. at Rs.2,46,378.78/- and refund of electric charges from the period starting from November, 1999 to January, 2000 to the tune of Rs.67,831/- and business loss in the sum of Rs.1,25,000/-, total being Rs.4,98,024/-. 7. The finding recorded by the State Commission that the complainants are also entitled to refund of an amount of Rs.67,831/- charged from them as minimum electric charges for the months from November, 1999 to January, 2000 with interest @ 6% p.a. appears to be not correct. The affidavit filed byShri S.S. Rawat, Sub Divisional Officer stating that the complainants consumed 18240 units remains unrebutted on the record. No effort was made to scrub this document of paramount importance. It is, thus, clear that the complainants have used those units as mentioned in the affidavit. They are not supposed to enjoy such a huge units of electricity free of costs. Consequently, we find that the appellants are entitled to charge for those units. 8. Consequently we partly accept the appeal. The petitioner – DHBVNL will not return the above said amount of Rs.67,831/- nor will it pay the interest in the sum of 6%. To that extent the petition stands allowed. However, we find no illegality or infirmity with the order passed in respect of the compensation amount to Rs. 2 lakhs and interest imposed thereon. To that extent, the petition stands dismissed. No costs.

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

English: Ganesha statue at Siddhadata Ashram, ...

English: Ganesha statue at Siddhadata Ashram, Faridabad, Haryana, India. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

NEW DELHI

 

 

 REVISION PETITION NO. 4680  OF  2009

(Against the order dated 10-09-2009 in RBT No. 1580/2008 in Appeal No. 1813/2002 of the State Commission, UT Chandigarh)

 

  1. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd.

Through its Supdt. Engineer

Operation Division, Sector-23

Faridabad, Haryana

 

  1. The Executive Engineer

Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd.

Operation Division, Sector-23

Faridabad, Haryan

 

  1. The SDO(Operation)

Sub Division

Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd.

Mathura Road,

Faridabad, Haryana                           …….. Petitioner (s)

Vs.

 

  1. Shri Sanjay Satsangi

 

  1. Shri G.P. Satsangi

 

Both Directors of M/s Endee

Woolen & Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd.

14/4, Mathura Road

Faridabad, Haryana                           …….Respondent (s)

 

BEFORE:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER

      HON’BLE MR. SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER   

 

For the Petitioner    :    Ms. Shweta Mishra, Advocate

 

For the Respondent    :   Mr. Rajesh Mahna & Mr. Ramanand

Roy, Advocates

Dated :  24th      May, 2012

 

ORDER

 

PER JUSTICE MR. J.M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

The facts of the instant revision petition are these.  Both the respondents namely Sanjay Satrangi and G.P. Satrangi are the directors of M/s EndeeWoolen & Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad.  The company is having a power connection in the said factory.  The respondents are regularly paying the bills sent by the petitioner, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd..  An electric transformer was installed inside the factory premises of the respondents/claimants. The said transformer was removed by the SDO (Operations), Sub Division, Mathura Road, Faridabad on 16th October, 1999 from the factory premises of the complainants without making any alternative arrangement for the supply of electricity.  The said transformer was brought back on 10-12-1999 but the same was installed outside instead of inside the factory premises of the complainants.  According to the complainants they had constructed foundation and platform for the transformer to be installed inside their factory premises and also met all the installation charges for its installation.  However, the petitioners installed the said transformer outside the said factory premises.  According to the complainants, after the installation of the transformer the same could not be connected with the system and energized upto 01-02-2000 and the same was energized only on 02-02-2000.

2.           The grouse of the complainants is that they did not get the full electricity and the electricity supplied to them was inadequate and insufficient to run the factory.  However, thereafter, the request of the complainants  was  acceded  and the full   electricity   was given after 02-02-2000.  The complainants hired generator to run some of the machines to cope with the urgent supply orders.  In the complaint it is submitted that they have suffered a loss of Rs.4,98,024/-.

3.           The District Forum, after hearing the parties held that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the petitioners.  The District Forum also upheld the plea raised by the petitioners that the transformer in question had been removed by the petitioners in order to give supply to the maximum consumers during the shortage of electricity and the same was done in public interest. However, no documentary proof was adduced. It also opined that after some days of the removal of the transformer, the same was re-installed with the purpose to give power supply to the complainants.  Consequently, it dismissed the complaint.

4.           Aggrieved by the said order, the complaints filed an appeal before the State Commission.  The State Commission directed the appellants to file an affidavit narrating therein as to what alternative arrangements were made for the use of electricity by the complainants and how much electricity had been consumed by the complainants.  After the removal of the transformer, it is surprising to note, that, no such affidavit saw the light of the day.  The State Commission, after consideration of the facts and circumstances, partly accepted the complaint and awarded a sum of Rs.2 lakhs as consolidated compensation for deficiency in service and harassment as well as loss caused to the complainants.  It was further held that the  complainants are also entitled to refund of an amount in the sum of Rs. 67,831/-  charged from them as minimum electric charges for the months from November 1999 to January 2000 with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The petitioner was further directed to pay cost in the sum of Rs.5,000/-.   Interest @ 12% upon Rs. 2 lakhs was also awarded from the date of the order till actual payment.  The order was announced on 10th September, 2009.

5. We have heard counsel for the parties.  Counsel for the petitioners have invited our attention towards an affidavit filed by Shri S.S. Rawat, Sub Divisional Officer, Faridabad dated 13th August 2009.   Its relevant portion is reproduced as follows:

“1. That the transformer of the appellant was inside its premises and on 16-10-1999 the said transformer was shifted outside the premises.

2.   That during the period of shifting the transformer, the electricity supply of the premises of the appellant was remained uninterrupted as alternative measure was made for supply of electricity.

3.   That since October, 1999 to February, 2000, the appellant consumed 18240 Units.  The photocopy of statement of consumption for the period April, 1999 to April, 2000 is annexed herewith.”

 

The same runs as below:-

MONTH NEW OLD CONSUMPTION
Apr -99 12908 12871 2220
May – 99 12932 12908 1440
Jun-99 13087 12932 9300
Jul-99 13236 13087 8940
Aug-99 13363 13236 7640
Sep-99 13523 13363 9600
Oct-99 13699 13523 10560
Nov-99 13767 13699 4080
Dec-99 13782 13767 900
Jan-00 13796 13782 840
Feb-00 13827 13796 1860
Mar-00 13891 13827 3840
Apr-00 13937 13891 1760

 

6.           We find force in this affidavit in a measure.  The petitioner himself admits that the electricity supply of the premises of the complainants remain uninterrupted as alternate measure was made for supply of electricity.  It was also not denied that the complainants had to hire another generator. Respondents/complainants have claimed hire charges at Rs.26,500/-, repairing charges of generator at Rs.28,500/- and amount spent on purchase of diesel oil, lubricants, etc. at Rs.2,46,378.78/-  and refund of electric charges from the period starting from November, 1999 to January, 2000 to the tune of Rs.67,831/- and business loss in the sum of Rs.1,25,000/-, total being Rs.4,98,024/-.

7.          The finding recorded by the State Commission that the complainants are also entitled to refund of an amount of Rs.67,831/- charged from them as minimum electric charges for the months from November, 1999 to January, 2000 with interest @ 6% p.a. appears to be not correct.  The affidavit filed byShri S.S. Rawat, Sub Divisional Officer stating that the complainants consumed 18240 units remains unrebutted on the record. No effort was made to scrub this document of paramount importance. It is, thus, clear that the complainants have used those units as mentioned in the affidavit.  They are not supposed to enjoy such a huge units of electricity free of costs. Consequently, we find that the appellants are entitled to charge for those units.

8.           Consequently we partly accept the appeal.  The petitioner – DHBVNL will not return the above said amount of Rs.67,831/- nor will it pay the interest in the sum of 6%.  To that extent the petition stands allowed.  However, we find no illegality or infirmity with the order passed in respect of the compensation amount to Rs. 2 lakhs and interest imposed thereon.  To that extent, the petition stands dismissed. No costs.

 

..…………………..………J

     (J.M. MALIK)

      PRESIDING MEMBER

                                                               

  ..……………….……………

                                                        (SURESH CHANDRA)

                                                                            MEMBER

aj/

 

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 2,897,198 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,907 other followers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com
%d bloggers like this: