Delhi

StateCommission

FA/13/336

R.K. SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

BSES YAMUNA (P) LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

12 Mar 2018

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

                                                             Date of Decision: 12.03.2018

First Appeal No. 336/2013 and 944/2013

In the matter of:

R K Sharma

R/O A/4, Plot No.32

Oriental Enclave,

Indraprastha Ext. Delhi- 110092                                   ........Appellant

 

Versus

 

BSES Yamuna Power Ltd.

Shakti Kiran Building, Karkarduma Delhi,

110092         

 

General Manager (D), LNR (Power Supply),

33KV Grid SSTN, East Guru Angad Nagar, Luxmi Nagar,

Delhi-110092.

 

Shri Deepak Benjamin,

Business Manager, BSES

Luxmi Nagar,

Delhi-110092.                                                   ......Respondents

                                                                  

CORAM

 

N P KAUSHIK                         -                  Member (Judicial)

 

1.         Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                   Yes

2.         To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                  Yes

 

Counsels for the Parties:

Counsel for the Respondent: Ms. MoulshreeShukla.

 

N P KAUSHIK – MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

JUDGEMENT

1. This order shall dispose of the appeal Nos.FA-336/13 and FA-944/13.
2. Appeal No.336/13 is directed against the orders dated 27.02.2013 passed by the Ld. District Forum (East)Saini Enclave,Delhi(the orders arising out of complaint No. CC-474/10) whereas Appeal No-944 isdirected against the orders dated 24.07.2013 issued bythe District Forum Saini Enclave, Delhi (arising out of complaint No. CC-600/13). Before proceeding further, it may mentioned here that FA-944/13 was disposed of bythis commission vide orders dated 16.09.2014. Hon’ble National Commission vide orders dated 24.07.2015 while dismissing the revision petitiongranted liberty to the appellant to file an application on the basis of afresh notice.
3. Going into the background of the whole matter, appellant R K Sharma filed a complaint dated 14.06.2010 in the District Forum alleging that as a resident of A/14 Oriental Enclave Indraprastha Extension, Delhi-110092, he was an user of electricity connection from BSES Yamuna Power Limited (in short the OP). Meter bore the CRN No. 1230033056 and K No. 123005100004. Grievance of the complainant R K Sharma was that OP had served upon him a final notice of disconnection on the grounds of not allowing meter change. Notice of disconnection was dated 04.06.2010. Complainant had sought stay against the alleged disconnection besides seeking damages to the tune of Rs.50,000/-. Legal expenditure to the tune of Rs.15,000/- was also prayed for.
4. In reply to the complaint, defence raised by the OP was that the change of meter had taken place way back on 28.08.2004. Electronic port of the meter (No. 12406067) had not been working since April 2009. Meter reading could not be downloaded through machine. Only a manual reading could collect the meter reading. Bills on provisional basis used to be sent. In terms of DERC Supply Code and Performance Standard Regulation 37 (iii), provisional billing could not continue for more than two billing cyclesat a stretch. In this situation complainant was requested to get the meter changed. Complainant did not get the meter changed. On 04.06.2010,a final notice for change of meter was sent to the complainant. Referring to the law on the subject, OP contended that it was within its powers to cut off the supply of electricity to the consumer so long as he refused change of meter.
5. In its rejoinder, complainant denied the contention of malfunctioning of the meter. He stated that the meter installed was functioning correctly and he was receiving the bills as per actual consumption. Complainant also stated that he was not aware of the provisions of law cited by the OP.
6. Ld. District Forum vide orders dated 16.06.2010, granted an interim stay against disconnection uptil 21.07.2010. Said order was extended vide orders dated 21.07.2010 and for the period till 25.08.2010. Again vide orders dated 25.07.2010 interim stay was allowed to be continued. Complainant filed an appeal (No.336/13) challenging the orders dated 27.02.2013 passed by the Ld. District Forum. Orders dated 27.02.2013 are reproduced below:-

“It was pointed out that the meter installed at the premises was to be examined by the Electrical Inspector. The same could not be removed from the spot for the purpose of getting it examined. The Electrical Inspector in his report mentioned that the consumer and the Licensee have chosen not to respond to notices issued by the Electrical Inspector earlier and because of this, it has not been possible to take action in the case. The complainant himself submitted that the meter if removed for the purpose of meter testing then new meter may be installed as stop gap arrangement for recording the electricity consumption. He further contended that the meter should only be removed by the Electrical Inspector and not by the OP. We agree with the submission of the complainant. The Electrical Inspector is directed to remove the meter from the premises of the complainant and get it examined as per order passed earlier ad submit his report. Meanwhile the OP shall provide a new meter at the premises of the complainant as a stop gap arrangement for recording the electricity consumed.

 

   Electrical Inspector shall submit report with regard to the disputed meter by 08.05.2013.

 

  Copy of this order be given dasti to both the parties for serving it on the Electrical Inspector and a copy be sent to him by the office.”

 

7.           In his appeal (No.336/13), complainant submitted that the Ld. District Forum erred in issuing directions to the electrical inspector (reproduced above) without deciding his application under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. He stated that tampering of the meter was done by the OP for issuing inflated bills. In his application dated 16.03.2012 under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, complainant had alleged that on 06.02.2012 some officials of the OP tried to change the meter. It was strongly objected to by him (the complainant). Officials tampered with the meter. Complainant contended that the aforesaid action was a disobedience of the court’s orders as court had directed them to maintain Status-Quo.
8. In reply to the appeal, OP submitted that no law made it mandatory for the courts to decide contempt petition first.
9. OP further submitted that the present appeal became infructuous as the Ld. District Forum vide orders dated 24.07.2013 disposed of the application for contempt. Vide orders dated 24.07.2013, the contempt application filed by the complainant was dismissed. Now the complainant filed another appeal against the order dated 24.07.2013 (bearing No.944/13).Vide orders dated 16.09.2014 this commission dismissed appeal No.944/13. Aggrieved against the orders dated 16.09.2014, complainant filed a revision petition in the Hon’ble National Commission. Before proceeding further and dealing with appeal No.944/13, it is made clear that after the disposal of the contempt petition, appeal No.336/13 clearly became infructuous. The same is accordingly disposed of.
10.  Now coming to appeal No.944/13 again, Hon’ble National Commission allowed the complainant to withdraw his revision petition. National Commission however gave liberty to the complainant to file a fresh application in case he received fresh notice from the OP. Complainant filed a miscellaneous application in this commission on 27.05.2015 on the basis of  an alleged fresh notice dated 02.04.2015. Perusal of the notice dated 02.04.2015 shows that it is similar to the earlier notice dated 28.06.2013 which had already been dealt with by this commission vide orders dated 16.09.2014. This commission in its order dated 16.09.2014 had observed as under:-

“The petitioner has not placed on record the entire order sheet of the District Forum. It is also not clear whether the stay granted vide order dated 16.06.2010 and 21.07.2010 is continuing till date or not. Even the aforesaid orders are not annexed with appeal and the same are shown in the court only.

Counsel for the respondent is present in the court in some other case. Counsel for the respondent has submitted that he is representing the respondent in the present case in District Forum. It is submitted that appellant is not paying the electricity charges as a result of which the aforesaid show cause notice was issued. It is submitted that the meter of appellant is faulty and the District Forum has passed an order for change of meter. Even the appellant is not permitting to change the meter.

Further in the notice dated 28.06.2013, it is mentioned that the party is at liberty to meet the Commercial Officer of the Division in case there is stay order in his favour. In these circumstances, petitioner is at liberty to meet the concerned officials with the stay order, if any, in his favour.

No case for interference is made out. Appeal is dismissed.”

11.         Notice dated 02.04.2015 also grants liberty to the complainant to meet the commercial officer of OP in case of any orders in his favour from a court of law. Since there is no fresh material except for the claim ofan  additional amount of Rs.180/-, miscellaneous application dated 22.05.2015is disposed of in terms of this commission’s orders dated 16.09.2014.
12. Cutting short the whole matter, the problem arose when the officials of BSES Yamuna Power Limited (OP) went to the premises of the complainant for change of the meter. It may be mentioned here that the traditional electricity meters used to be manual. In other words for taking a reading, a man has to access the meter personally. Now-a-days electrical meters are are available where meter reading can be taken by way of downloading the same while sitting at a distance. Electricity authorities while sitting in their office can download the reading fromsuch  an electronic meter.
13. OP in the present case wanted to change the meter from a traditional one to an electronic one. Complainant objected to the same. He contended that the said traditional meter was functioning correctly and there was no need for its change. At another place in his pleadings complainant contended that the electricity authorities wanted to replace the correct meter with a tampered meter. There is no material on record in support of the said contention. Be that as it may,let us examine whether the electricity authorities are empowered to change the meter. Under the provisions of the Electricity Act 2003, the electricity authorities are entitled to enter the premises for inspecting, testing, repairing, or altering the electricity supply-lines meters. Fittings, works and apparatus for the supply of the electricity belong to the licensee. In other words the meter installed in premises of the complainant is the property of the OP. Relevant law on the subject as contained in Electricity Act 2003 is re-produced below:-

 

163 Power of licensee to enter premises and to remove fittings or other apparatus of licensee:-

(1)    A licensee or any person duly authorized by a licensee may, at any reasonable time, and on informing the occupier of his intention, enter any premises to which electricity is or has been supplied by him, of any premises or land, under, over, along across, in or upon which the electric supply-lines or other works have been lawfully placed by him for the purpose of :-

(a)inspecting, testing, repairing or altering the electric supply-lines meters. Fittings, works and apparatus for the supply of electricity belonging to the licensee; or

(b)ascertaining the amount of electricity supplied or the electrical quantity contained in the supply; or

(c)Removing where a supply of electricity is no longer required, or where the licensee is authorized to take away and cut off such supply, any electric supply-lines meters, fittings, works or apparatus belonging to the licensee.

     (2) A licensee or any person authorized as aforesaid may also, in pursuance of a special order in this behalf made by an Executive Magistrate and after giving not less than twenty-four hours notice in writing to the occupier,:-

(a)enter any premises or land referred to in sub-section (1) for any of the purposes mentioned therein;

(b)enter any premises to which electricity is to be supplied by him, for the purposes of examining and testing the electric wires fittings, works and apparatus for the use of electricity belonging to the consumer.

                     (3) Where a consumer refuses to allow a licensee or any person authorized as aforesaid to enter his premises or land in pursuance of the provisions of sub section (1) or, sub-section (2), when such licensee or person has so entered, refuses to allow him to perform any act which he is authorized by those sub-sections to perform, or allow him to perform any act which he is authorized by those sub-section to perform, or fails to give reasonable facilities for such entry or performance, the licensee may, after the expiry of twenty-four hours from the service of a notice in writing on the consumer, cut off the supply to the consumer for so long as such refusal or failure continues, but for no longer.

14. Clearly it is the prerogative of the electricity authorities to change the meter. In the present case the District Forum deputed an electrical inspector to visit the site. Vide report dated 08.02.2012, he submitted that the complainant was no longer interested in pursuing his matter. Due to non-cooperative attitude of the complainant the electrical inspector was not in a position to examine the meter and file a technical report. After filing his complaint on 12.06.2010, complainant succeededin getting anexpartead-interim injunction against the OP. OP was directed not to disconnect the electricity supply to the premises in question. Ld. District Forum vide orders dated 27.02.2013, (re-produced above) appointed the electrical inspector to visit the site. Complainant did not cooperate. On the contrary, complainant filed contempt petition under section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. Complainant also alleged that on 06.02.2012 officials of the OP tried to change the meter to which he strongly objected. He also alleged that the said officials tampered with the meter. Contempt petition was dismissed by the Ld. District Forum vide orders dated 24.07.2013. Events thereafter have been briefly stated inparas 9 and 10 above.
15. A careful perusal of the record shows that the complainant kept the litigation alive by filing one or the other application.He would often absent himself form the procedings or seek adjournment.  He misused the process of courts. In a spanof eight years the electricity authorities failed to change the meter.
16. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramrameshwari Devi and ORs. v. Nirmala Devi and Ors. decided on 04.07.2011 observed as under:-

The courts have to be extremely careful in granting ad-interim ex-parte injunction.  If injunction has been granted on the basis of false pleadings or forged documents, then the concerned court must impose costs,grant realistic or actual mesne profits and/or order prosecution. This must be done to discourage the dishonest and unscrupulous litigants from abusing the judicial system. In substance, we have to remove the incentive or profit for the wrongdoer.

17. In view of the discussion above, both the appeal noFA-336/13 and the miscellaneous application filed dated in FA-944/13 are dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- each(Total Rs.20000/-).it is made clear that with the disposal of these appeals and misc. application. no interim injunction in favour of the complainant survives. OP is at liberty to proceed against the complaint or do the needful for change of the meter as per rules and regulations.

        File be sent to records.        

 

(N P KAUSHIK)

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)