BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Complt. Case No : 1348 of 2009

Date of Institution:    30.09.2009

Date of Decision  :    19.08.2010

Avtar Singh aged about 55 years, son of Sh.Gian Singh, R/o 337, Model Town, Ambala City, Haryana.

……Complainant

V E R S U S

1]          Chandigarh Electricity Department, through SDO, Electricity, Sub-Division No.2, Chandigarh.

2]          Assistant Executive Engineer, Electricity ‘OP’, Sub-Division No.2, Sector 10-A, Chandigarh.

3]          Superintending Engineer, Chandigarh Electricity Department, Sector 9, Chandigarh.

.…..Opposite Parties

CORAM:          SH.LAKSHMAN SHARMA                         PRESIDENT

                    SH.ASHOK RAJ BHNADARI            MEMBER

MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA                        MEMBER

PRESENT:     Sh.R.S.Sodhi, Advocate for the complainant.

Ms.Pratima Arora, GP for the OPs.

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

                The instant complaint has been filed by Sh.Avtar Singh, complainant against the Electricity Department of Chandigarh claiming refund of excess bill charged as well as compensation for harassment.

1]             Briefly stated, the complainant is the owner of SCF No.196, Sector 7-C, Chandigarh.  There is an electricity meter installed at the premises.  The 1^st Floor of the said premises had been given on rent to  M/s. G.P. Forest Development (India) Ltd. till 5.10.2001 and the electricity bills were regularly paid till 5.10.2001.

                On 5.10.2001, the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in a Company Petition  No.50 of 2001 initiated winding up proceedings against the said tenant company and appointed an Official Liquidator to take control of all the assets and effects of the Company.  The order of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court has been placed at Ann.C-1.  In accordance with the orders of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, the Official Liquidator put a lock and seal on the main shutter at the main entrance of the said SCF on 16.10.2001.  He also pasted a notice at the main gate of the premises to this effect. 

                The complainant alleges that due to the order of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, he was not getting any rental income from the said premises thereafter.  To take back possession of his SCF he filed an application No.377 of 2005 in the said Company Petition and requested for vacant possession of the SCF.  The Hon’ble High Court was pleased to order the handing over of vacant possession of the said SCF to the owner on 3.4.2008; subject to the condition that he would purchase the old articles of the company in liquidation.  The articles were valued at Rs.1.00 lakh.  The copy of the order of the Hon’ble High Court is placed at Ann.C-4.  The complainant purchased the old articles of the company and paid the required sum in favour of the Official Liquidator after which he was handed over vacant possession of the said SCF on 7.5.2008.

                After taking possession, the complainant came to know that the electricity connection of the premises had been disconnected by the OPs due to non-payment of the consumption charges.  When he approached the electricity department, they insisted on payment of arrears of electricity consumption, which also included payment for the period when the premises remained closed.  An amount of Rs.44,065/- was demanded.  The complainant tried to convince the OPs that the premises remained closed during the concerned period, therefore, he should be exempted from payment of arrears as the OPs were well aware of the orders of the Hon’ble High Court since the notice of the Liquidator was already pasted at the main entrance of the premises.  The OP refused the request of the complainant and therefore, he was constrained to pay the amount demanded to get his connection restarted. 

                The complainant alleges that since the premises were locked from 5.10.2001 to 8.5.2008, there was no consumption of electricity in the intervening period and even thereafter till the date the connection was actually restored.  The complainant has thus filed the instant complaint claiming refund of extra charges as well as compensation for unfair trade practice and gross deficiency in service by the OPs.

2]             After admission of the complaint, notices were sent to the OPs.

3]             All the OPs have filed joint reply.  In the preliminary objections taken by the OPs, they have stated that the complainant is not a consumer as per Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as the connection of the meter was for commercial purpose.  Further as per circular issued by Superintending Engineer (Operations), Electricity Memo No.6222-35, dated 30.6.2000 (Ann.R-II), a new connection in the same premises can only be released when the old consumption charges pending are cleared by the Consumer.  The OPs have stated that they had disconnected the electricity connection of the complainant in April, 2002 due to non-payment of electricity payment for more than one year.  With regard to the complainant, the OPs allege that the complainant was already a defaulter in payment since an amount of Rs.13,385/- was due from him upto Oct., 2001.  This amount included arrears of bill as well as current bill.  The office of the OPs had issued electricity bills to the complainant every two months and the complainant never approached the OP either for disconnection of his electricity connection or for making payment.  Thus from Feb., 2001 to April, 2008 a total amount of Rs.44,065/-, as per details at Ann.R-1, were due from the complainant.  When the payment was not made as per the bills, 10% surcharge was added to the bill amount in compliance with the notification of Chandigarh Administration, dated 30.9.2002 placed at Ann.R-3.

                The complainant/consumer had applied for a new connection on 18.8.2009 for which payment of pending dues was a necessity before release of the new connection.  The OPs have reiterated again that since connection was for commercial purpose, the complainant would not be a consumer as per Section 2(1)(d) of the CP Act.  Further according to the OPs, the bi-monthly bills were issued to the complainant regularly and his connection was disconnected due to non-payment and not on request.  Therefore, the demand of outstanding amount was justified.  In view of the above, they have prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

4]             We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the evidence and documents placed on record.

5]             After the time of arguments, the complainant was emphatic that since he had not used the connection due to the lock on the shutter put by the Official Liquidator, appointed by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, he should not be held liable for the payment of any bills towards the same.  He alleged that it was not fair for the electricity department to make demands of the outstanding amount since the premises remained locked, and he had no access to the premises.  Further, a notice by the Official Liquidator was pasted on the main entrance of the SCF clearly stating that the premises were locked and sealed.  The persons coming to check the meter could have read the notice and disconnected the electricity connection.  He alleged that the payment taken by the OPs from him for the intervening period from 2001 to 2008 is unjustified and arbitrary and amounts to gross deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice.  He also alleged that he is justified in not only claiming refund of the amount but also compensation and cost of litigation from the OPs.

6]             The OPs in their reply and at the time of argument have stated that in case an electricity meter is installed at a premises, then even if the meter is not being used, the consumer has to pay a minimum amount against the rent of the meter.  As argued the ld.Counsel for the OPs, only this minimum rental amount and arrears of the rent had been charged from the complainant.  No amount for usage had been charged for the period when the premises remained locked.  Further, their submission is that surcharge at 10% had been charged due to non-payment of outstanding dues as per Government Notification dated 30.9.2002 already placed at Ann.R-3.

7]             The OPs, therefore, submitted that they could not issue a new connection to the complainant for the premises unless all earlier dues had been cleared.  Their demand was therefore justified and no amount was now due from them towards the complainant.

8]             It is clear from the above discussion that the OPs have not in any way charged any extra amount from the complainant.  Making a demand for over due amount and rental of meter cannot be considered to be unjustified or any deficiency in service. 

9]             The complainant’s plea that the notice pasted outside the premises/SCF was enough for the OPs to disconnect the electricity connection, does not seem justified.  A formal request for disconnection of electricity should have been made by the complainant to the OPs.  Unfortunately, he did not make any such request, so the meter rent continued. 

10]            In view of the above findings, the complaint is dismissed.  The OPs are not liable to refund the amount charged by them as arrears of bill from the complainant at the time of issuing him a new electricity connection.  No deficiency in service or unfair trade practice is made out.     

                Certified copies of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

19^th Aug., 2010                                                            Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

                                                          Sd/-

                                       (ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI)

MEMBER

                                                          Sd/-

                                                             (MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

‘Om’