LEGAL APPROACH
Ensuring Legal Services

 
  About Us >>  
  Areas of Practice >>  
  Judgments >>  
  Bare Acts >>  
  Court Websites >>  
  Cause Lists >>  
  Formats >>  
  Contact us >>  
  Blog >>  
  Disclaimer >>  
R.N. TRIVEDI vs. STATE OF U.P. dated 2014-09-08

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

NEW DELHI

 

 

REVISION PETITION NO. 3006 OF 2008

(From the order dated 29-11-2007 in First Appeal No. 913/03  of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh)

 

R.N. TRIVEDI

S/o Shri Hira Lal Trivedi,

Resident of 84, Y-Block,

Kidwai Nagar,

Kanpur Nagar,

UTTAR PRADESH

...........Petitioner(s)

 

          Versus

 

1. STATE OF U.P.  

Through Chief Secretary,

Secretariat

Lucknow,

UTTAR PRADESH

2. THE U.P. POWER CORPORATION LIMITED

Through its Managing Director,

Shakti Bhawan,

Lucknow,

UTTAR PRADESH.

3. THE KANPUR ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO. LTD.

Through its Managing Director, KESCO/KESA Building,

Civil Lines, Kanpur,

 

UTTAR PRADESH

...........Respondent(s)

                    

BEFORE: 

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

For the Petitioner                             : Mr. Anish Kumar Gupta, Advocate

                                                 

For the Respondent              : Mr. S.K. Agnihotri, Advocate

                                                           

 

PRONOUNCED ON     8th   SEPTEMBER, 2014

O R D E R

 

 PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER

         

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against impugned order dated 29-11-2007 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. 913/03  – R.N. Trivedi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., by which while allowing appeal, order of the District Forum allowing complaint was set aside.

2.      Brief facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner was provided electricity connection no. 6726/KESA/C -306 (T/W) on 09-04-1991 for the tube well which was situated at Plot No. 100 at VillageRooma, Block & Tehsil Kanpur by opposite party/respondent. Complainant used to pay Rs.250/- per month @ Rs.50/- per horse power per month for the electricity meter for 5 horse power and Rs.15/- per month for the light and fan.  Opposite party vide bill dated 11.12.1999 for the period from 15.07.1994 to 30.11.1999 demanded Rs.1,93,179/- for 56438 units, which is illegal.  On 11-03-2000 his power connection of tube well was disconnected and opposite party sent bill dated 10.01.2001 for Rs.2,63,806/- on the basis of 725 units from 30.11.2000 to 31.12.2000 whereas in the bill last reading was shown as zero. It was further alleged that in this bill electricity duty was shown as Rs.6,525/- whereas no electricity was used since 11.03.2000 as supply was disconnected.  Alleging deficiency on the party of opposite party, complainant filed complaint for restoration of electric supply after receiving dues from 01.11.1993 to 11.03.2000 @ Rs.265/- per month.  Opposite party did not appear and was proceeded ex-parte.  Learned District Forum after hearing complainant allowed complaint and quashed bill dated 11.12.1999, 10.01.2001 and demand notice dated 25.0.2002 for Rs.4,21,138/- and directed opposite party to restore connection on payment of bills due @ Rs.265/- per month and further allowed compensation of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.1,000/- as cost. Appeal filed by opposite party was allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which this revision petition has been filed.

3.      Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record.

4.      Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per amended notification dated 30th March, 1995, petitioner was liable to pay as per rate schedule of LMV-5 and learned District Forum rightly allowed complaint but learned State Commission committed error in allowing appeal and dismissing complaint, hence revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside.  On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law, hence revision petition be dismissed.  

5.      Learned District Forum held that complainant was liable to pay electricity bill at the old rate of Rs.265/- per month.  Learned State Commission observed that LMV-6 was applicable in the case of petitioner as village of the petitioner falls in urban area and dismissed complaint.

6.      Perusal of LMV-5 reveals that this schedule was applicable to power consumers getting supply as per rural schedule in the private tube well/pumping sets for irrigation purposes.  LMV-6 was to apply to consumers having contracted load up to 100 HP (75 KW) for industrial/processing or agro-industrial purposes, pumping sets getting supply other than rural schedule.

7.      Perusal of both schedules reveals that petitioner’s case falls under rate schedule LMV-5 as he was getting supply for his private tube well and rate schedule LMV-6 was not applicable to his case and LMV-6 was applicable only for industrial/processing or agro-industrial units having connected load up to 100 HP.  Learned State Commission committed error in holding that LMV-6 was applicable on the ground that he was getting supply from urban area, which finding is apparently not correct.

8.      As petitioner’s case falls within LMV-5 learned District Forum rightly quashed demands raised by bill dated 11.12.1999 and bill dated 10.01.2001 and to this extent learned State Commission committed error in allowing appeal and dismissing complaint.

9.      Learned District Forum also quashed demand notice dated 25.06.2002 for Rs.4,21,138/- whereas no such prayer was made by complainant in the complaint and in such circumstances, order to the extent of quashing demand of notice dated 25.06.2002 by District Forum was not proper and to this extent order of District Forum is to be modified.

10.    Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 29-11-2007 passed by learned State Commission in Appeal No. 913/03 – U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. R.N. Trivedi & Ors.  is set aside and order of District Forum dated 07.02.2003 passed in Complaint NO. 157/2001 – R.N. Trivedi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. Is modified and order of quashing demand notice dated 25.06.2002 for Rs.4,21,138/- is set aside and respondent is directed to charge @ Rs.265/- per month from the petitioner till rate schedule is revised and rest of the order of District Forum is affirmed.

 

     .……………….………………

(K.S. CHAUDHARI, J)

PRESIDING MEMBER

aj


© 2008-2014 Legal Approach