DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016
Case No.463/2009
Smt. Seema Mehra
Wife of Shri Arun Mehra,
Khasra No. 137/1, Village Sahoorpur,
Mehrauli,
New Delhi-110030. ….Complainant
Versus
BSES-Rajdhani Power Limited,
Through its CEO,
(Saket Division), BSES-RPL, Adhchini Building,
New Delhi-110017 ….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 11.06.2009
Date of Order : 04.09.2018
Coram:
Sh. R.S. Bagri, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
ORDER
Member - Kiran Kaushal
Brief facts of the case are that:-
- The complainant is a registered consumer of the electricity department. Complainant had an electricity connection which was granted and energized for Agriculture Category and later changed to domestic category on the application of the complainant.
1.2 The dispute between the parties arose when the meter reading escalated to 10053 units in April, 2007. The complainant alleged that bill was raised for wrong reading for 10053 units, whereas reading was taken for only 4001 units on 11.06.2007. Thereafter the complainant wrote two letters stating that the premises of the said dispute were lying vacant and unused with the request for change of category from AP to DL.
- The complainant further alleges that the show cause notice dated 06.03.2007 was given to him for misuse of electricity. It is further stated that neither proper personal hearing was given to the complainant nor any speaking order received.
- Complainant also complained to the OP about the faulty meter which was replaced with new meter on 03.04.2007. Complainant was asked to deposit of Rs.50,000/-which was deposited on 31.01.2007. It was in the reply to the aforesaid complaint by the OP that the complainant got to know that bill of Rs.2,54,940/- was raised against him.
- Complainant further alleges discrepancy in the meter reading of the disputed period.
- Complainant states that as per OPs version, till the date of 14.02.2008 the amount payable was Rs. 1,80,000/- out of which the complainant made a payment of Rs.1,50,000/- on 22.02.2008 but still in the bill of April, 2008 the arrears payable has been shown to be Rs.56,490/- and current demand for the period from 19.02.2008 to 09.04.2008 has been shown to be Rs.4,405.87p bringing the total amount of the bill to Rs.60,896.77p whereas the balance amount was Rs.1,80,000/- - Rs.1,50,000/- = Rs.30,000/- only. Thus, the arrears are shown in access by Rs.26,490/- which is neither due nor payable by the complainant.
- It is further prayed that the OP be directed not to disconnect the electricity connection and to issue correct revised bill of the property in dispute.
- It is further prayed that Rs.25,000/- be granted towards compensation for having caused agony, mental pain & harassment and OP be asked to pay Rs.55,000/- as cost of litigation.
2.1 The complaint was resisted by the BSES (OP) stating that complaint was false, baseless, misconceived and gross abuse of the liberal provisions of law.
2.2 OP further submits that an inspection of the premises of the complainant was made by the authorized Enforcement Team on 06.03.2007. The sanctioned category was for the agricultural purpose but was found used for the Farm house/ domestic purpose by the complainant. A show cause notice regarding the unauthorized use of electricity was sent to the complainant on 06.03.2007 along with relevant documents. The complainant was also requested to attend the personal hearing on 21.03.2007 but none appeared on behalf of the complainant to attend the personal hearing, then the speaking order was passed exparte on 26.03.2010.
2.3 The OP averred that the complainant himself has admitted that the actual usage of the electricity was for the domestic purpose and it was clearly proved from the inspection that it was a clear cut case of unauthorized use of electricity. Thereafter speaking order was passed by the Assessing Officer as per the Tariff provisions and DERC Regulations. It was on the basis of the speaking order that the bills were raised on actual basis as per the provision of the Tariff Provisions and DERC Regulations. OP submits that bills raised are absolutely correct and in accordance with law.
2.4 OP further submits that bill of Rs.2,52,544/- for the month of December, 2007 was mutually settled between the complainant and opposite party for an amount of Rs.1,85,241/- after giving the relief of 50% of violation charges to the complainant. It is pertinent to mention here that the settlement letter was signed by the authorized representative of the complainant Col. Mr. R.K. Jairath and the Business Manager of the OP. It is further submitted that out of the settlement amount i.e. Rs.1,85,241/- the consumer deposited an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and the balance amount of Rs.35,241/- was carried towards the next billing month of Feb, 2008 as arrears. The bill for the month of Feb, 2008 was raised for the amount of Rs.56,490/- out of which Rs.35,241/- as arrears, Rs.18,288/- current demand bill and Rs.2,961/- LPSE for this month.
2.5 OP submits that letters written by the complainant were replied by the letters bearing No. BM(D)SKT/) & /D-30 dated 05.01.2008 and DGM (B) SKT/09/64 dated 13.02.2009.
2.6 OP has relied on the following judgments :-
(i) D.V.B v/s D.N. Shukla III (2003) CPJ 66
(ii) M.P. Electricity Board, Jabalpur & Ors V/s Harsh Wood Products & Anr, AIR 1996 State Commissioner 2258.
(iii) D.V.B. v/s Devender Singh W.P. (C) 1240/2005.
3. The rejoinder to the written statement was not filed by the complainant.
4. The complainant reiterates whatever is stated in his compliant, as well in his evidence by way of affidavit.
4.2 Affidavit of Mr. M.D. Jaya Prakash, DGM has been filed by way of evidence on behalf of the OP.
5. Written arguments have not been filed on behalf of the parties. We have heard arguments of the parties and have also gone through the file very carefully.
6. OP has raised two objections in his reply. One is on maintainability of the complaint and the other on merits of the case. To press upon the preliminary objection, OP has relied on three judgments. Ratio of all the judgments cited by the OP is same that dispute pertaining to theft or Fraudulent Abstraction of Energy cannot form the subject matter of proceedings before the authorities under Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The judgments relied upon apply on the facts of this case. Therefore, we are of the opinion that relation between the complainant and OP is that of a consumer vis a vis the Electricity Act but complainant is not a consumer under Consumer Protection Act as it is a case of misuse of electricity, which remained unchallenged by the complainant.
7. However, now I shall deal with the contentions on merits of the case. As per the above discussion and observation made. It is admitted fact that the complainant was sanctioned electricity connection for agricultural category.
8. Dispute between the parties arose in April, 2007 when the complainant received escalated bill for Rs.1,80,926.79p. OP in its written statement submits that after inspection of the disputed electricity connection, notice for misuse of supply were served on 06.03.2007. As such misuse charges were levied and bill was raised as per the provision of tariff. OP has placed a letter dated 08.01.2008 on record wherein it is shown that the category of the complainant has been changed from the AP to DL after completion of commercial formalities by the complainant. It is only after adjusting of the payment disputed by the complainant that the total outstanding dues of Rs.2,54,940/- were raised.
9. The second limb of the argument from the counsel of complainant was that there was discrepancy in the bill raised. This has been clarified in the order of DERC (Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission) on AAR and tariff dated 09.06.2004 which has held that the use of electrical load for category of use other than sanctioned category shall be billed at the penal rate equivalent to one and half time the tariff for the relevant category of actual use with retrospective effect as per provision in the Tariff.
Another issue of contention is that settlement was signed by an unauthorized person and the amount was paid under protest. It is hard to believe that the complainant agreed to pay substantial amount to OP on the asking of the unauthorized person. No evidence is available to prove that money was paid under protest.
According to the OP, parties arrived at settlement wherein part payment was made and the balance amount was adjusted as arrears (details mentioned in para-7 of the written statement of the OP).
Thus, for the reasons noticed above, we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and the complainant is liable to pay the outstanding dues to the OP.
In view of the above discussion, the complaint is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 04.09.18
