ELECTRICITY : Bill: Arbitrary Amount after more than four years : Not justified
Bill: Arrears : Factum of Consumption never Denied: Consumer Liable to Minimum charges Based on Installed Capacity
Bill : Meter Burnt : Additional Electric charges Raised
Bill : Penalties : Electricity through Industrial Connection Objectionable
Bill : Repair or Replacement of Meter after a period of four years : deficiency in Service
Delay in Replacement of Transformer : Deficiency in Service
Disconnection : Deficiency in Service Established
Excessive Bill
Failed to Release Connection
ELECTRICITY TARIFF
Proceedings : Recovery of Money
ELECTRICITY : Bill: Arbitrary Amount after more than four years : Not justified TOP
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 15 - Appeal - Electricity Bill Opposite party issued electricity bill for 19.1.1984 to 4.10.1988 in March, 1993 - Complaint filed - district Forum set aside demand - Appeal - Opposite Party apprehended that meter stopped working in January, 1984 - No steps taken for replacement of meter -0 No interference called for.
Sub-Divisional Officer, Electricity Operation v. B.R. Sur Chandigarh S.C.D.R.C. 150
Bill: Arrears : Factum of Consumption never Denied: Consumer Liable to Minimum charges Based on Installed Capacity TOP
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)c)(iii) - Deficiency in Service - Electricity Bill, Arrears - /forum held dispute not referred to Electrical Inspector - Arrears could not be charged for period exceeding 6 months, bill set aside - Hence appeal - Factum of consumption never denied - shop keeper liable to pay minimum charges based on installed capacity - Order set aside.
Sub-Divisional Officer, Electricity 'OP' v. Gopal Mills Store Chandigarh S.C.D.R.C. 169
Bill:Essential Requirements never Fulfilled:Sundry Charges Set Aside
-Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(c)- Complaint - Electricity Bill - Sundry Charges - Indian electricity Act, 1910 - Section 26(6) - Slowness of electricity meter - Demand for Rs.6,01,187/- made - Dispute not referred to Electrical Inspector - Essential requirement never fulfilled - Bill of sundry charges set aside.
Chandigarh Bottling Co. v. Chandigarh Electricity Department Chandigarh S.C.D.R.C. 61
Bill : Meter Burnt : Additional Electric charges Raised TOP
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 2(1)(c) and 17 - Complaint - Electricity Bill - Meter burnt - Plant in full operation - Low meter installed - Upto date bills paid - Additional electric charges raised - Referred to C.E.I.W.B. - Line not to be disconnected till report received - Finding binding on parties.
Uma Ice Plant v. Asstt. Engr. Banshdroni. Gr. of E.S. W.B.S.E.B. West Bengal S.C.D.R.C. 269
Bill : Penalties : Electricity through Industrial Connection Objectionable TOP
-Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 15 - Appeal - Electricity Bill - Penalty - Complaint possessed two electric power meters - Commercial meter service cable broke down - Complaint illegally availed electric supply through industrial connection - Electricity bill served - Penalty imposed for excess load - Use of electricity through industrial connection, objectionable - claim for setting aside penalties rejected.
Ram Gopal v. Sub-Divisional Officer, Electricity Chandigarh S.C.D.R.C. 375
Bill : Repair or Replacement of Meter after a period of four years : Deficiency in Service TOP
-Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 15 - Appeal - Electricity Bill - Opposite party issued electricity bill for 19.1.1984 to 4.10.1988 in March, 1993 - Complaint filed - District Forum set aside demand - Appeal - Opposite party apprehended that meter stopped working in January, 1984 - No steps taken for replacement of meter - No interference called for.
Compensation
-Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 14(d) - Compensation - Electricity disconnected - Complaint - No sufficient evidence to come to any figure to compensate complaint - Rs.5,000/- granted as compensation.
Satpal Kaur v. Executive Engineer P.S.E.B. & Anr. Punjab S.C.D.R.C. 50
Connection : Non-release of: No Discrimination by Showing Preference
-Consumer Protection Act. 1986 - Section 2(1)(c)(iii) - Electricity Connection - Non-release of - Deficiency in Service - District Forum directed HSEB to release the connection - Hence appeal - Number of applicants already waiting for their turn - HSEB cannot be compelled by Consumer Court to discriminate by showing preference to one applicant over others - Order set aside.
Sub-Divisional Officer, Sub-Division, H.S.E.B. v. Jagiro Devi Haryana S.C.D.R.C 311
Delay in Replacement of Transformer : Deficiency in Service TOP
-Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 2(1)(c)(iii), 14(1)(d) - Electricity - Deficiency in Service - Delay in Replacement of Transformer - Agreement for supply of power to Lift Irrigation point - Transformer got damaged by lighting stroke - Disruption in supply of power - Delay of 11 months for replacement of transformer - Irrigation of land seriously affected - complaint entitled to compensation.
Rajni Kanta Mishra v. Sub-Divisional Officer (Electrical) Orissa S.C.D.R.C. 193
Disconnection : Deficiency in Service Established TOP
-Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(g) - Deficiency in Service - Electricity - Disconnection - Opposite party removed high tension wires - Electricity to the tubewell of complaint disconnected - complaint filed - Electricity restored after filing of complaint - Remained disconnected for 10 days - Complaint - Deficiency in service established.
Satpal Kaur v. Executive Engineer, P.S.E.B. & Anr. Punjab S.C.D.R.C. 50
Excessive Bill TOP
-Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 15 - Appeal - Electricity Bill - Civil suit filed for refund of excess amount charged - withdrawn and dismissed to recourse proceedings under Consumer Protection Act - Forum held, after dismissal of suit recourse under Consumer Protection Act not possible - Hence appeal - Remedy under Consumer Protection Act additional one - Suit not dismissed on merits - Non production of order copy - No presumption can be drawn regarding its contents - Order not justified in law - Set aside.
Mohindra Cold Storage v.Punjab State Electricity Board Punjab S.C.D.R.C. 250
Failed to Release Connection TOP
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 15 - Appeal - Electricity Connection - Complaint applied for domestic light connection - Approved - Opposite party failed to release connection - District Forum directed opposite party to release connection and awarded compensation - Hence appeal - Contention raised, Complaint unauthorisedly occupied premises, not entitled for electricity connection - No material produced in support - Complaint could not be held unauthorised occupant of property - Order of District Forum upheld.
Delhi Vidyut Board v. Daya Dutt Vashistha Delhi S.C.D.R.C. 707
-Hiring of Service : Consumer
-Consumer Protection Act. 1986 - Section 2(1)(d) - Consumer - Section 2(1)(o) - Service - Electricity - Complaint receiving electricity from opposite party as per agreement of 60 H.P. - Using only 40 H.P. - Complaint filed for return of excess charges - Opposite party is providing service - Complaint is consumer.
Jainendra Kumar v. M.P. Electricity Board Madhya Pradesh S.C.D.R.C. 625
-Jurisdiction:Validity of Tariff
-Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(c)(iii) - Electricity - Unreasonable Tariff - Deficiency in Service - Jurisdiction - Complaint an Advocate, running Office - Electricity charged under tariff for non-residential supply - Offices categorised under non-residential supply - No deficiency proved - Consumer forum has no jurisdiction to decide validity of tariff prepared.
Ashutosh Burathoki v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board & Ors.
Himachal Pradesh S.C.D.R.C. 11
-Line Dismantled Unauthorisedly:Deficiency in Service
-Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(c)(iii) - Electricity - Line Dismantled Unauthorisedly - Deficiency in Service - Owner placing obstructions in the passage of current - Line drawn without objection of owner of land - Owner cannot object at later stage - No deficiency in service on part of O.P. - Interference from third party - Duty of O.P. to restore the line dismantled unauthorisedly.
Mariamma Unnunni v. Asstt. Engineer, Electrical Major Section Kerala S.C.D.R.C. 113
-Minimum Charges : Consumer is liable to Pay
-Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 17(b) - Revision - Electricity Charges - Minimum charges - Consumer is liable to pay minimum guaranteed charges in terms of conditions of supply.
Assistant Accounts Officer, Electricity Revenue Office, APSEB v. Gadde Pramila
Andhra Pradesh S.C.D.R.C. 432
-Misuse Charges:Recoverable for six months
-Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 15 - Appeal - Indian Electricity Act, 1910 - Section 37 - General Condition of Supply - Condition No.31(d) - Misuse Charges - Electricity connection - provided for irrigation purpose - Opposite party found misuse - Bill raised for misuse charges for one year - Complaint - Dismissed - Appeal - - charges - recoverable only for six months - Demand for a period of one year is illegal.
Balkrishna Patidar v. Junior Engineer, M.P. Electricity Board, Maxi
Madhya Pradesh S.C.D.R.C. 643
-Power not Supplied : Attitude Unsympathetic : Compensation
-Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 2(1)(c)(iii), 14(1)(d) - Deficiency in Service - Electricity -Power not Supplied - Compensation - Petitioner approached W.B.S.E.B. for starting oil industry - Being assured of supply applied for financial loan - Sanctioned Construction made - Machineries purchased - Electricity not supplied - Petitioner unable to start industry - Loan repaid to Corporation - Compensation claimed - Board's attitude most unsympathetic - Deficiency in service proved - compensation reduced to Rs.40,000/- as against Rs. One lakh awarded by Forum.
West Bengal State Electricity Board V. SK. Neharul Ali West Bengal S.C.D.R.C 302
- Refund of charges on Basis of Connected Load : Demand in Accordance with Agreement
-Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 15- Appeal - Indian Electricity Act, 1910- Sction37 - Complaint was supplied 60 H.P electricity - Connected load only 40 H.P.- Claimed refund of charges made on the basis of connected load of 60 H.P. Denied-complaint - dismissed- Appeal-Demand was in accordance with the agreement.
Jainendra Kumar V. M.P Electricity Board Madhya Pradesh S.C.D.R.C.625
-Rules
- Indian Electricity Rules, 1956-Rules 77- Clearance Above Ground of Lowest Conductor - No conductor of an overhead line shall be erected anywhere unless there is 13 feet of clearance above the ground.
S. Ramasami V.P. Shanmugavelu Tamil Nadu S.C.D.R.C.497
Electricity : Service Connection not Given : Justified
-Service Connection not Given : Justified
- Consumer Protection Ac, 1986 - Section 2(1)(c)(iii) - Electricity- Service Connection not Given - Deficiency in Service - Complaint applied for electricity service connection for Diesel Bank- Ground clearance less than 8 feet - Opposite party reused service connection - District Forum held, opposite party deficient in service, awarded compensation- Hence appeal- Rules requiring clearance of minimum of about13 feet not satisfied - opposite party justified in declining service connection
S.Ramasami V.P. Shammugavelu Tamil Nadu S.C.D.R.C 497
-Supply Obstructed : Title Dispute : Prayer Rejected
- Consumer Protection Act. 1986 - Section 15 - Appeal- Elect5icity- Supply Obstructed - Forum held, Petitioners bona fide occupiers- Pendency of civil suit not bar to grant of electricity- Hence appeal- Title dispute between parties based on possession - Grant of electricity may give rise to complications in title suit- Petitioners prayer should not be allowed at this stage- Order set aside.
Kumud Kumar Mandal V. Kartick Chandra Naskar West Bengal S.C.D.R.C 312
ELECTRICITY SUPPLY : Feeder not Installed : Deficiency in Service
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(c)(iii) - Electricity Supply - Feeder not Installed - Deficiency in Service - Jurisdiction- Complaint's Company manufacturing cement - Electricity supply provided on regular feeder- Insufficient- Installation of independent feeder applied for - Money deposited- |Feeder not installed - Compensation claimed for deficiency in service - Voluminous documentary evidence required to be gone into - Complaint not maintainable under limited jurisdiction of Consumer Protection Act.
Nitika Cements Ltd. V. Haryana State Electricity Board Haryana S.C.D.R.C 430
ELECTRICITY TARIFF TOP
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 15- Appeal - Electricity Tariff- Complaint was charged for electricity on flat rates- Opposite party revised the bills - Complaint - No opportunity afforded to Complaint - HSEB can to revise the bill
Sub- Divisional Officer, Operation HSEB v. Om Parkash Haryana S.C.D.R.C 235
-Lawyers' Offices at Residences
- Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 15 Appeal- Electricity- Tariff- Complaint in Lawyers' Offices maintained at their residences- Domestic supply - Cannot be equated with " commercial tariff"
Sub - Divisional Officer, sub-Division HVPN, Karnal V. Advocate Sh. Sushil Blushan Gupta
Haryana S.C.D.R.D 297
ELECTROCUTION : Compensation Granted
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 14(1)(d) - Compensation- Electrocution - Electric wires passing over complainant's field - Wire hardly 7'-8' height from grounds - Wire broke down resulting electrocution of she-buffalo grazing in field - Direct liability to be fastened on Executive Engineer - Electric wire so dangerous even tractors could not pass Not attended for three months even after writing of Collector - Extreme example of corruption- Gross negligence on part of supervisory officer- Compensation granted.
Rajasthan State Electricity Board & Ors. V. Charn Singh Rajasthan S.C.D.R.C 162
EVIDENCE : Burden of Proving Fact
Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 104 - Burden of Proving Fact - Party in the knowledge of fact should discharge the onus.
National Forum for Consumer Education V. Sanjay Krishi Seva Kendra & Ors.
Maharashtra S.C.D.R.C. 451
- Entry of Data of Birth in School : Not of Much evidentiary value to prove age
· Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 15 - Appeal - Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 35 - Date of Birth - Age - Entry of Date of Birth in School - Not of much evidentiary value to prove the age of a person.
Study Circle Society v. Life Insurance Corporation Madhya Pradesh S.C.D.R.C. 719
- Opportunity Evidence
- Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 15 - Appeal - Opportunity of Evidence- Complaint filed- Written statement despatched by post - Complaint not contested by counsel - district Forum allowed complaint - Appeal - Appellant could not adduce evidence - Case remanded.
Tata Hydro-Electric power supply co. Ltd.V.Ms. Savita Rani Chandigarh S.C.D.R.C 234
EXECUTION ; Continuation of Compliant : Jurisdiction to Proceed with the Execution Proceedings
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 -Section 21 - Execution- Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act,1993 - Complaint field in 1992 before State Commission claiming Rs. 2,61,272/- -Amendment raised pecuniary jurisdiction of district Forum to Rs. 5,00,000/- Commission awarded amount Rs2,61,272/- on 31.12.1996 - Execution filed before Commission - Judgement-debtor objected to the jurisdiction- Execution is continuation of complaint Commission has got the jurisdiction to proceed with the execution proceedings.
B.S. Malathi V. Mr. Paramjit Singh Karnataka S.C.D.R.C 659
- Enforcement of orders : Penalties : Two Independent Remedies
-Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 25 & 27- Execution Petition - Enforcement of Orders - Penalties - Non Compliance of Order - Section 25 & 27 provide two independent remedies- Proceedings u/Sec.25 civil in nature- Proceedings u/Sec.27 criminal, quasi against petitioner u/Sec - Imposition of fine and sentence by forum, violative of principles of natural justice - Order set aside.
Deepthi Coaching Centre V. Itta Krishnaiah Andhra Pradesh S.C.D.R.C 208
Execution : Proceedings
- Proceeding
- Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 27 - Execution Proceeding - District forum has no jurisdiction to enquire into which was not the subject matter of complaint.
Assistant accounts Officer, Electricity Revenue Office, APSED V. Gadde
Pramila Andhra Pradesh S.C.D.R.C. 432
Proceedings : Recovery of Money TOP
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 27 - Execution - Recovery of Money - Arrest of Judgment Debtor - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Sections 56 and 58 - Arrest of woman - Execution filed before district Forum - Order for recovery of money - District Forum cannot order the arrest of women for recovery of the amount.
Mrs. Jancy Joseph v. Union of India & Ors. Kerala H.C. 464
EX-PARTE
-Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 15 -Appeal - Ex-parte - Complaint filed - Opposite party proceeded ex-parte - Opposite party filed application for setting aside ex-parte order - Not decided by District Forum - Decided complaint - Appeal - Ex-parte against opposite party has to be set aside.
National Auto Electric Works V. R.V. Technolinks (P) Ltd Delhi S.C.D.R.C 37