Reserved

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P. Lucknow.

Appeal  No.  178 of  2021

1- Madhyanchal  Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited,

    Vidyut Nagariya Vitran Khand, 33Gha 11 KV,

    Vidyut Upkendra Sector-6, Jankipuram Vistar,

    Lucknow through it’s Executive Engineer.

2- Madhyanchal  Vidyut Vitran Khand,

    Shakti Bhawan, Lucknow through it’s

    Chairman.                                                      ....Appellants.

Versus

Amrendra Kumar Singh aged about 45 years,

S/o (neither mentioned in complaint nor in

Affidavit in support of complaint) R/o Plot

No.8, Atal Nagar, Kalyanpur Paschim, Lucknow. 

                                                                   …..Respondent.

Present:-

1- Hon’ble Sri Ashok Kumar, President.

2- Hon’ble Sri Govardhan  Yadav, Member.

3- Hon’ble Sri Rajendra  Singh, Member

Sri Santosh Kumar Mishra, Advocate for Appellant.

Sri Iftikhar Hasan, Advocate for Respondent.

Date  25.8.2021

JUDGMENT

Sri Rajendra  Singh,  Member-  The Appellant has filed this appeal against the judgement/order dated 19.01.2021 of the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Lucknow passed in complaint case no 325/2018 , Amrendra  Kumar  Singh  Vs  Madhyanchal  Vidyut  Vitran Nigam Ltd and Ors.

In brief the appellants’ version is that the Learned District Forum escaped from contemplated way of consideration as to how trust billing is made in urban area, and as to how burden is discharged by the consumer, and in the event of failure of discharging the burden obliged upon

(2)

consumer then what result would occur. In this case a request has been made by the respondent for a supply connection and supply of electricity was given to respondent through meter no.  5X4181 being connection no 0022976889 and bill was deposited on the basis of self assessment of the respondent by suppressing the correct reading and every time when the meter reader goes to the premises of the respondent, the access to the meter was used to be avoided by the respondent saying that he has already deposited the bill. It is a chance when on 14 April 2018, the meter reader Awaneesh  Tiwari reached the premises of respondent and hesitatingly he permitted to take a view of meter in which reading was displayed 83504 unit and demand was 3.28 KW and as such stored reading was found 58,902 units. The snap shot of meter was taken by the meter reader and this information as to these facts had been conveyed to on Whats App of Subdivision Officer Sri  Anand  Kumar  Kanaujia and through mobile phone too.

The meter reader, in addition to information to SDO, sent a letter to Executive Engineer Vidyut  Vitran  Khand, Raheem  Nagar Lucknow on 16 April 2018 for further action. Just after 14 April 2018 on the respondent got the meter  PX4181 interfered with the help of any expert person who made the meter burnt and in the result that meter was converted into non-displaying position, and a black spot as to mark of burning of meter was evident over the meter. The incident of meter burning too was reported to the Executive Engineer, Sector-6, Jankipuram  Vistar  Prikchhan  Khand  Dasham, Vikas  Nagar  Lucknow for complete enquiry of the meter through letter dated 16 May 2018. It is

(3)

well-known settled law that in case of non-availability of meter Reading average consumption shall be drawn on the basis of previous three billing cycle, but it happens in plain cases not in case like present one in which a snapshot was taken and unauthorised use of energy was found as consumer continuously suppressed the correct reading.

On the basis of the above facts and circumstances brought in report was filed by concerned JE who did not take stern action like lodging FIR against consumer and only made the bill of stored reading found on the spot billing as on 14 April, 2018 and Rs. 4,39,838/- was calculated and demand for that was made to respondent in just and fair manner. The respondent who himself suppressed the accurate billing and when his meter was checked by meter reader then stored reading was found and this should have been deposited but he, instead of that put the meter burnt, and then made the complaint before Learned District Consumer Forum Lucknow on 04.09.2019.  On after 10 January 2019 written statement was filed by the Appellant/opposite party no. 1 & 2 of the complaint and mentioned all the facts and circumstances. The Learned Forum escaped from taking into account the correct fact and its appreciation in accordance to law and passed the impugned order. There is no deficiency of service on the parts of appellants. Because electricity dues were found upon respondent is the public money and it must be deposited as soon as possible. The Learned Forum has wrongly imposed the amount without keeping in view the correct fact and circumstances of case. The impugned order passed by learned Forum is liable to be set aside in the interest of justice. Therefore it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Commission

(4)

may graciously be pleased to set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.

We have heard the counsels for the appellants and respondent and went through the pleadings, evidence and documents filed by the parties.

First of all we perused the copy of electric bills filed by the Appellant with an application dated 19 March 2021. It is not clear whether these documents were filed before the Learned District Forum or not. It is better to reproduce these bills in a tabulated form for the convenience of the parties.

This Chart shows the reading during the month of April 2018 which is disputed and controversial. A number of bills have been submitted by the appellants. The above chart shows that on 14 April 2018 the billing was done for 302 units and just thereafter again on 16 April, 2018 meter reading was done and the consumption was found 58,902 units . Now the question arises as if the person authorised by the electricity department to get the reading and as per

(5)

version of the Appellant, the respondent used to tell that he has submitted the reading to the Department and has paid the dues for that particular period . Whether the Appellant or his department ever took precaution to counter check the billing or to issue a notice to the respondent for showing cause as to under what circumstances he did not permit the meter reader to check the meter ? What action has been taken by the Appellant in such a case is not clear ? If the respondent did not permit the meter reader to enter into his premises for reading, under what circumstances he permitted that particular meter reader to enter in the premises just after three days of the last meter reading ? The Appellant is not able to answer these questions when put forth by this bench.

Now another most important question which emerged from the grounds of appeal is that, that the Appellant has specifically stated in Para E of the appeal. In this para the Appellant has specifically charged the respondent that he, with the help of an expert person, got the meter burnt.

While in Para F of the appeal, It is admitted by the appellant that incident of meter burning was reported to the Executive Engineer, sector 6, Jankipuram. He, after receiving the incident of meter burning, wrote a letter to Executive Engineer Lucknow for complete enquiry through his letter dated 16.05.2018.

Thus by this admission it is clear that the meter has been burnt by the respondent just after 14.04.2018 and this matter has been referred to Executive Engineer, sector-6, Jankipuram and thereafter referred to Lucknow for a complete enquiry. No such enquiry report has been filed by the Appellant. No such letter which has been written by the

(6)

Executive Engineer, sector-6, Jankipuram to Executive Engineer Lucknow, has been filed.

Now we have perused paper number 22 that is Meter  Sealing certificate dated 19.05.2018 , sealing book number 1800 , and sealing certificate number 06 which has been filed by the Appellant with his appeal.

(7)

Thus it is clear that as per appellant, the respondent in a conspiracy got his meter burnt with the help of an expert just after 14 April, 2018 and after receiving information in this regard the executive engineer inform the headquarter for conducting an enquiry. The above scanned is Meter sealing certificate of 19 May 2018 meaning thereby that it is prepared just after this alleged incident. Now there is endorsement in this paper that the meter is not burnt, the seal on the body is okay and the condition of the meter is again okay and regarding last reading it is written as N/D , no-display. If the meter has already been burnt before 19 May 2018, why did it not mention in paper number 22 submitted by the Appellant. This establishes the fact that neither the meter was burnt nor the seal of the meter was broken. It shows that the appellant did not bother to peruse his own document.

Now the following conclusions immerse from the pleadings and documents –

1. That the Appellant’s version of burnt meter is fake and has no ground instead he submitted this fact in his appeal and an affidavit has also been filed by the Appellant showing false affidavit in this regard.
2. That the seal of the meter is okay meaning thereby that it has not been broken or burnt thus falsifying the story of Appellant.
3. That as per Appellant’s version the respondent did not permit to take reading and did not allow the meter reader to enter into his premises for meter reading for months, it is really surprising that the Appellant did not take any step to verify this fact or did not take any step against the consumer . If it is so, what was the reason to

(8)

allow the meter reader to enter into the premises on 16 April 2018 when the respondent has already sent the reading on 14 April 2018 ?

4. The snapshot of the meter does not show any meter number or reading and it is also not clear as to for which this snapshot stands for.

These are the unanswerable questions which could not be explained by the Appellant . We perused the judgement/order of learned District Consumer Forum-1 , Lucknow and we did not find any ground to interfere in the said judgement. For submitting false affidavit before this court and for narrating wrong statements the amount for cost should have been enhanced many folds but we are not going to enhance it at this juncture . We are of the opinion that this appeal has no force and there is no ground to interfere in the judgement/ order of the learned District Consumer Forum-1 Lucknow passed in complaint case no 325 of 2018. The appeal is liable to be dismissed with the cost.

ORDER

The Appeal is dismissed with cost and the judgement/order of the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dated 19.01.2021 passed in  complaint case no 325 of 2018 is hereby confirmed . The copy of this judgement be provided as per rules.

Certified copy of this judgment be provided to the parties as per rules.

(9)

The stenographer is requested to upload this order on the Website of this Commission today itself. 

(Justice Ashok Kumar)   (Goverdhan Yadav)     (Rajendra Singh)   

       President                   Member                  Member  

Judgment dated/typed signed by us and pronounced in the open court.

          Consign to Record Room.

(Justice Ashok Kumar)   (Goverdhan Yadav)     (Rajendra Singh)   

       President                   Member                  Member                

Jafri,  PA II

Court 1