STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Sukhdev  Singh, son of  Late Sh. Atma Singh, Plot No.767, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh.

……Appellant

V e r s u s

Asstt. Executive Engineer, Electricity, OP, Sub-Division No.5, Chandigarh.

              ....Respondent

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:   MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT.

                MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

                SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER.

Argued by: Sh.P.C.Rana,Advocate for the appellant.

                   Sh.Jatinder Singh, Govt. Pleader for the respondent.

PER  JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT

1.                          This appeal is directed against the order dated 28.04.2011, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which it dismissed the complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant).

2.                          The facts, in brief, are that the complainant was running a fabrication and welding entrepreneur. He received an electricity bill dated 09.02.2010, for the month of Jan., 2010, for a sum of Rs.1,56,819/-, and the sundry charges mentioned therein were to the tune of Rs.1,52,874/-. On inquiry, as also, on the basis of application moved by the complainant, he came to know that the average in the sum of Rs.1,52,874/-, had been charged, on the basis of the average consumption for the period from 24.05.2009 to 06.01.2010 i.e. for 7 months 13 days, on the basis of corresponding period of the previous year from April, 2008 to October, 2008 @6906 units per month. It was stated that the other entrepreneur of the complainant M/s Mahalaxmi Enterprises,  had already installed its separate electricity meter in the month of August, 2008. It was further stated that, thus, substantial load of electricity had been diverted to that meter, since then. It was further stated that, as such, there was no question, of any amount, being charged by the Electricity Department, under the head of sundry charges. It was further stated that, even otherwise, the dues for more than six months could not be charged. It was further stated that the bill for the month of January, 2010, was arbitrary, unjustified and unreasonable. The OP was many a time, asked to withdraw the illegal bill, but to no avail. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the OP, amounted to gross deficiency, in rendering service.

3.                          When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed for setting aside the bill dated 09.02.2010, demand notice dated 25.02.2010 and for grant of compensation of Rs.2.00 lacs, towards mental harassment and agony, as also litigation expenses.

4.                          In reply, the OP stated that the meter of the consumer was checked vide E.C.R. No.27/563 dated 12.11.2009. It was found that the meter was slow by 39.12% and, as such, the meter was changed on 06.01.2010. The average in the sum of Rs.1,52,874/-, had been charged for the period from 24.05.2009 to 06.01.2010 i.e. for 7 months 13 days on the basis of consumers` own consumption, for the corresponding period of the previous year from April, 2008 to October, 2008 @ 6906 units per month. It was further stated that prior to August, 2008, there was a single meter. It was further stated that the OP had no record, as to whether, Mahalaxmi Enterprises, was having a joint meter with the complainant, till August, 2008, or not, and, if it was right, then they were availing 50.442 KW load, in excess of the sanctioned load. It was further stated that as per Regulation 71.4.3 of the Sales Regulations, the over-hauling of accounts, shall be carried out for a maximum period of 6 billing months, preceding the billing month of detection of defect/error in the meter. It was further stated that the complainant was not a consumer. It was further stated that this was exactly, which was done by the OP, and that too, under the relevant Regulation. It was further stated that there was no deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the OP.

5.                          The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

6.                          After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint, on the ground, that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. 

7.                          Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed, by the appellant/complainant.

8.                          We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 

9.                          The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that a separate meter had been got installed by M/s Mahalaxmi Enterprises, in the premises, in question, in the month of July, 2008 and since then, the load of the meter in question was diverted to the said meter. He further submitted that this fact was not taken into consideration by the District Forum, as a result whereof, it fell into a grave error, in coming to the conclusion, that the demand raised by the OP, was in accordance to the provisions of the relevant Regulations. He further submitted that, even if, the meter in the premises of the complainant, was found slow, the overhauling of accounts was required to be done, as per Regulation 71.4.3 of the Sales Regulations. He further submitted that, in the instant case, the accounts of the complainant were overhauled for 7 months and 13 days, as admitted by the OP, which was contrary to the aforesaid Regulation. He further submitted that no copy of the checking report was supplied to the complainant, nor, it was signed by him. He further submitted that, no doubt, the meter is still in the name of K.P.S. Dhillon, yet the complainant is consuming the electricity therefrom, and, as such, he falls within the definition of a consumer. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being based on conjectures and surmises, is liable to be set aside.

10.                     On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent/OP, submitted that the meter, in the premises of the complainant, was checked vide E.C.R. No.27/563 dated 12.11.2009, which was found to be slow by 39.21%. He further submitted that, accordingly, the accounts of the complainant were overhauled for 7 months and 13 days i.e. from 24.05.2009 to 06.01.2010 and the bill, in dispute, was sent, on the basis of consumption of electricity for the corresponding period of the previous year from April, 2008 to October, 2008 @6906 units per month. He further submitted that when the meter was checked, and found slow, copy of the checking report was supplied to one Rashid Khan, duly authorized representative of the complainant and he signed the same. He further submitted that when the bill C15, vide which the demand was raised, was challenged by the complainant, vide letter C18, he was asked to approach the Disputes Settlement Committee, but he failed to do so. He further submitted that the demand raised by the OP, is, in accordance with the Rules and Regulations.  He further submitted that the complainant, being not a consumer, the complaint was not maintainable.

11.                     The first question, that arises, for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainant, at the relevant time, was a consumer of the Electricity Department, or not. No doubt, in the record of the Electricity Department, the meter exists in the name of K.P.S. Dhillon, yet, admittedly, at the relevant time, it was the complainant, who was occupying the premises, and consuming the electricity, from the said electric meter. The complainant, thus, fell within the definition of consumer. Even the Counsel for the OP, at the time of arguments, did not press this issue. It is, therefore, held that the complainant, being a consumer of electricity, against the meter, in question, was competent to file the complaint. The complaint was, thus, maintainable.

12.                     It is evident from C17, copy of the checking report, that the meter in question, in the premises, being occupied by the complainant, was checked with Accuchek on 12.11.2009, vide E.C.R. No.27/563, which was found slow by 39.21%. It is further evident, from this document, that one Rashid Khan, a representative of the complainant, received a copy of the checking report, C-17. It was accordingly, directed that the meter should be replaced immediately. The meter was changed on 06.01.2010. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, to the effect, that copy of the checking report C17, was not supplied to him, therefore is belied from the document itself. Even, on the reverse of C17, there are signatures of the Checking Officer, as also, of Rashid Khan, a representative of the consumer/complainant. Under these circumstances, the submission of the Counsel for the appellant, to the effect that, a copy of the checking report was not supplied, does not merit acceptance and stands rejected.

13.                     The next question, that arises, for consideration, is, as to whether M/s Mahalaxmi Enterprises, got installed a separate meter in August, 2008, in the premises and some load of the meter, which was checked, was diverted to the same, it may be stated here that, no evidence, was produced by the complainant, that earlier to that  this enterprise was having a joint meter with the complainant till 2008. If the version of the complainant, in this regard, is accepted as correct then he (complainant) was using load of 50.442 KW, in excess. No evidence was produced by the complainant that any load from the meter, in question, was diverted to the meter of Mahalaxmi Enterprises from August, 2008.  On the other hand, the plea of the OP was that the meter is installed in the premises in question, in the name of K.P.S. Dhillon, yet, the consumption of electricity was being made by the complainant, therefrom. Mere plea of diversion of load to a substantial extent, of the meter, in question, to the meter of M/s Mahalaxmi Enterprises without any reliable evidence, to prove the same, cannot be accepted to be correct. The submission of the Counsel for the complainant, in this regard, being without merit, is rejected.

14.                     Now the next question, that arises for consideration, is, for how much period, the accounts of the complainant, could be overhauled, when the meter, in question, on checking, was found to be slow by 39.21%. The Electricity Department is required to act, in accordance with the Sales Regulations. It cannot act contrary to the same. The OP in the written reply admitted that the accounts of the complainant were overhauled, for 7 months and 13 days i.e. from 24.05.2009 to 06.01.2010 and the bill, on the basis of average consumption of the consumer, for the corresponding period of the previous year i.e. from April, 2008 to October, 2008 @6906 units per month, was raised. According to Regulation 71.4.3 of the Sales Regulations, in case of defective meter, the overhauling of accounts shall be carried out for a maximum period of 6 billing months, preceding the billing month of detection of defect/error in the meter. The Sales Regulations have got the force of law. In the instant case, by raising the demand vide Annexure C15 for 7 months and 13 days of Rs.1,52,874/-,  the OP, acted contrary to Regulation 71.4.3 of the Sales Regulations. Under these circumstances, the demand to the tune of Rs.1,52,874/-, referred to above, raised by the OP, being contrary to Regulation 71.4.3, is  illegal and liable to be set aside.

15.                     For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is accepted with no orders as to costs, and the impugned order is modified in the manner, as follows:-

(a)              The demand raised by OP/respondent for 7 months and 13 days from 24.05.2009 to 06.01.2010 vide bill Annexure C15, to the tune of Rs.1,52,874/-, being contrary to Regulation 71.4.3, is set aside.

(b)              The respondent/OP, shall overhaul the accounts of the complainant, in relation to the meter, in question, for the maximum period of 6 billing months, preceding the billing month of detection of defect/error in the meter, as per Regulation 71.4.3 of the Sales Regulations.

(c)               The respondent/OP, after overhauling the accounts of the complainant, in respect of the meter, in question, as indicated at point (b) above, shall be at liberty, to raise a fresh demand, within one month, from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

16.                     Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

17.                     The file be consigned to record room.

Pronounced.

September 16, 2011

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

Sd/-

[JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL]

MEMBER.