In these Letters Patent Appeal, the High Court dismissed the appellant's challenge to the Single Bench order denying a prompt payment rebate on Minimum Monthly Charges.
The Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed, upholding the Single Bench order denying the rebate claim.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.605 of 2014 Arising out of Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 9131 of 2009
===========================================================
M/S Dina Metals Ltd., A Company Incorporated Under The Companies Act, Having Its Registered office At Abdul Rahmanpur Road, Didarganj, P.S. Malsalami, Patna City, District Patna Through Its Director, Mr. Anand Kumar Sinha Son of Late S.N. Prasad Resident of Ramkrishna Nagar, P.O. New Jaganpura, P.S. Ramkrishna Nagar, District - Patna
.... .... Appellant/s
Versus
.... .... Respondent/s
=========================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Suraj Samdarshi, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh with Mr. Akhileshwar Singh, Advocates
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA) Date: 21-09-2016
The challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeal is to an order passed by the learned Single Bench on 10th September, 2013 whereby the claim of the appellant for grant of rebate on account of prompt payment of dues even on Minimum Monthly Charges remained unsuccessful.
Patna High Court LPA No.605 of 2014 dt.21-09-2016
2/3
The appellant is a High Tension Specified Service consumer. The appellant claims that on account of prompt payment of the electric charges, it is entitled to prompt payment rebate, which
has been wrongly declined to the appellant. The argument is based on the tariff notification dated 28th May, 2001. Such Tariff Notification has been produced by the appellant as Annexure-3. The relevant extracts from the said notification read as under:
“3.TARIFF RATES:
Category of Service Demand Charge Energy Charge HTSS-I Rs. 700.00KVA/Month Plus 120 Paise/Unit
4. MINIMUM MONTHLY CHARGES:
The minimum monthly charges shall be levied at the rate of Rs. 1012/KVA of contract demand per month which shall be payable on monthly basis.
The minimum monthly charges are subject to minimum assured hours of supply of 630 hours per month.
If for any particular month the hours of supply are less than the minimum assured hours of supply as shown above then the minimum monthly charges for the month will be
Rs. [700+(312 x Hours of actual supply that month)]
630
The provisions of Clause-13 of the H.T. Agreement will not be applicable for this category of consumers.
The tariff rate of item no. 3 is subject to a rebate of 5 paise per unit provided the bill is paid by the due date.”
The grievance of the appellant is that even if the
consumption of a consumer such as the appellant is less than the
Patna High Court LPA No.605 of 2014 dt.21-09-2016
3/3
Minimum Monthly Charges, still, the appellant would be entitled to Prompt Payment Rebate on the minimum monthly charges as well whereas the stand of the licensee is that Prompt Payment Rebate is only allowable on the tariff as per the actual consumption.
A perusal of the Clauses mentioned above would show that the Minimum Monthly Charges are payable on the fixed rate as per the contract demand i.e., Rs. 1012/ K.V.A. whereas the Prompt Payment Rebate is in relation to tariff rate of Item No. 3 which is based upon actual consumption. Therefore, the Prompt Payment Rebate is allowable only in respect of actual consumption of the electricity and not on Minimum Monthly Charges which is dependent upon the contract demand and not on actual consumption of electric consumption.
In view of the said fact, we do not find any error in the order passed by the learned Single Bench which may warrant interference in the present Letters Patent Appeal which is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Hemant Gupta, J)
(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)
Anjani/P.Kumar
| AFR/NAFR | AFR |
|---|---|
| CAV DATE | N/A |
| UploadingDate | 26.09.2016 |
| Transmission Date | N/A |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Prompt Payment Rebate under the 2001 Tariff Notification is applicable to Minimum Monthly Charges payable on contract demand and not actual consumption.
Whether the Single Bench correctly interpreted the rebate clause to exclude Minimum Monthly Charges from the rebate benefit.
M/s Dina Metals Ltd.
The Bihar State Electricity Board
Hemant Gupta
Ahsanuddin Amanullah
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
