Manish Srivastava v. Ombudsman & Anr

2. According to the petition on 25.4.1996 an inspection was carried out at the picmisesofthe respondentno.2and a bill in the sum ofRs.2,02,273/wasraised uponthe respondentno.2forindulging in theftofelectricity to bepaid bytherespondentno.2 within the due date asstipulatedinthe said bill and a sum otRs. 3,08,646/- alter the due date. On 19.10.1997,the respondent no.2 paid an amount of Rs.2,02,273/- towards the theft bill raised on the basis ofinspection dated 25.04.1996, whereas according to the petitioner the respondent was liable to pay asum ofRs.3,08,646/-,as ihe aforesaid amount was paid beyond the due date. Since the petitioner paid only a sum ofRs.2,02,273/-, the difference in the bill amount i.e. Rs.1,06,373/- was reflected as arrears. Thereafter on 5.4.2008 an WP(C).?I09/20I0 i^agc 1 oTS 2013:DHC:6834 application was made,by the respondent no.2 for in-housc settlement-of his account, as according to the respondent he had paid certain excess amount,inter alia,towards the bills as well as towards shunt capacitor charges,the respondent no.2 thus,claimed refiind ofthe excess amount paid. 3- Ihcsaid application forin-housesettlement wasput up beforethe"bijii vivad samadhan samiti"forsettlementofdispute ofthe respondentno.2. After detailed negotiations,the parties arrived at an amicable settlement vide settlementdated 3.5.2008. In the said settlement it was,inter alia, agreed between the parties that the respondent no.2 shall withdraw the charges of shunt capacitor w.e.f. 1.11.,996, after site inspection and enhancementofload asthe consumer had deposited the amountforload enhancement under VDS Scheme on 1.11.1996. It was also agreed between the parties thatthe petitioner shall raise the bill on the basis of the said settlement. Accordingly, on 15.09.2008 the bills of the respondent were revised in terms of the abovesaid settlement and the icspondent no.2 wasentitled to refund ofa sum ofRs.1,95,293/- after all adjustments. Thesaid amountofRs.1,95,293/- waspaid bythepetitioner and accepted bytherespondentno.2on[7].11.2008,withoutany protestor demur. Thesaid amountin thesum ofRs.1,95,293/-wasaccepted bythe respondent no.2 towards full and final settlement of all his claims, in tcims of the settlement arrived at between the parties on 03.05.2008 before"bijJi vivad samadhan samiti".

4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that after receiving the aforesaid amount, the respondent no.2 filed a complaint before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Torum on 27.05.2009, seeking inter alia compensation for the period i.e. 1996 till date of refund ofthe excess billed amountofRs.1,95,293/- paid.The said compliant was disposed of WP(C)2109/2010 Paac 2 oi"5 r as not cntertainable by an order dated 30.7.2009 with an observation that the case has already been settled mutually before "bijli vivad samadhan samiti" on 03.05.2008 and when complainant was also a party. Aggrieved by order dated 30.07.2009 passed by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum respondent no.2 filed an appeal before Flectricity Ombudsman alleging, inter alia, that the respondent (Appellant therein) is entitled to compensation since the refunded amount was retained by the petitioner for the period of 1996 to November 2008, the appellant is entitled to be compensated in terms of interest @ 18 % p.a. on the amount mentioned above and also sought compensation towards mental harassment,personal loss, etc. The said appeal was allowed vide order dated 28.01.2010 and interest was awarded at the current bank rate to the respondent no.2 on the excess amountretained by the respondent,to be calculated in terms ofthe table as mentioned in paragraph 3.[1] ofthe impugned order. A further sum ofRs 10,000/- was also awarded to the appellant(respondent herein)for undue harassment,which has led to the filing ofthe present writ petition.

5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the parties had arrived at an amicable settlement on 03.05.2008. The respondent had not sought payment ofinterest at the time ofsettlement before "bijli vivad samadhan samiti" and in case such a request had been made,the petitioner may or may not have settled the matter with the respondent. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that once the settlement arrived at between the parties had attained finality which is clear from the fact that on 07.11.2008, respondent no.2 had accepted a sum of Rs.1,95,293/towards full and final settlement of all his claims, in terms of the settlement dated 03.05.2008 arrived at between the parties,the same could not be re-opened by way ofan appeal in the impugned order. It is further submitted that the amount of Rs.1,95,293/- was accepted by the WP(C)2109/2010 Page 3 of[5] / respondentno.2,withoutany protestor demur and thusrespondentnO.2is estopped from claiming any further amount or raising a further dispute with regard to the same issue. Counselfor-the petitioner also submitsthat in case settlements anived at between the parties on agreed teims are allowed to be re-opened, there would be no sanctity to any settle]nent before any ibrum or court.

6. It is also the case ofthe petitioner that the claim ofinterest is haired by limitation,as the respondent has not claimed interest atthe time when the first complaint was made before "bijli vivad samadhan samiti foi inhouse settlement on 05.04.2008 and the period of limitation has since expired.

7. Respondent,who appears in person,submits that he has been harassed by the petitioners and inflated bills were raised,which foiced the lespondent. to seek an in-house settlement. Respondent also submits that he did not ask for any interest,as he was not aware as to what amount would be due and payable to him. Respondent also submits that since the amount has been illegally withheld by the petitioner, the petitioner is liable to pay interest and there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Ombudsman.

8. I have heard counselforthe petitioner and the respondent,who appears in • person. There is force in the submission made by counsel for the. petitioner that the respondent did not claim any interest at the time of settlement, which was aiTived at as far back as in the year 2008. The explanation rendered by the respondent that since no amount was fixed, he did not claim interest, is unacceptable, as there is no co-relation for seeking interest and the amount due and payable, as the respondent has claimed 18% interest before the learned Ombudsman,the similar rate of interest could have been claimed by the respondent at the time of the settlement before "bijli vivad samadhan samiti". ITirther the respondent Pa"c 4 of[5] WP(C)2109/2010 n hasaaoeptedthesmnofRs.1.95,293/-.which wasreceivedbyhim aftera gap of2months,during which period or afterreceiptofthe amounttre..espondentdidnotc.aiminterestandinfactacceptedthechequewithout any protest or demur. The reasoning of the Ombudsman that t e respondentcould notclaim interest,asnoImalamounthad beenamve atbetweentheparties,cannotalsobeaccepted. Accordingly,theorderof.'he Ombudsman is set aside,except thatthe respondent shall be pal a 'sum ofRs.10,000/- as awarded by order dated 28.01.2010 by learned Ombudsman for undue harassment. G.S.SISTANI, APRIL 04,2013 ssn V'ft[2],e 5 oTS