STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Anil Kumar Sethi through G.P.A. Sh.Subhash Chand, SCO-34, Sector 26, Chandigarh.

….. Appellant/Complainant

                                      V E R S U S

1]      Chief Engineer, Electricity Department, U.T., Chandigarh

2]      XEN, Electricity Department, U.T., Chandigarh.

3]      S.D.O. (Operation) Electricity Department, U.T., Chandigarh, Sector 10, Chandigarh.

                        ....Respondents/OPs

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

BEFORE:     JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT.

                   MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

S.  JAGROOP  SINGH   MAHAL, MEMBER.

Argued by: Sh. R.K. Verma, Adv. for the appellant.

                   Sh. Jatinder Singh, GP for the respondents

PER  JAGROOP  SINGH   MAHAL, MEMBER

                   This appeal is directed against the order dated 11.4.2011, rendered by the ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) vide which it dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant/appellant.

2.                      According to the complainant he got three electricity meters installed in SCO No.34, Sector 26, Chandigarh from the OPs  and made regular payments of the bills received.  However, he was surprised to receive a bill in respect of Meter No.CHEP-01254Z for Rs.63,057/- which included the amount of Rs.59,485/- but no details were provided. He sent a letter to the SDO (Operation) on 20.4.2009 requesting him to supply the details of the amount of Rs.59,485/-.  He also sent a legal notice and even his liaison officer also personally met the SDO on 1.6.2009 but no details were provided and rather he was asked to make the payment in three installments.  It was alleged by him that the OPs had added the amount of some previous bill, dispute regarding which was settled by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), U.T., Chandigarh vide its order dated 15.10.2008 whereby he was held liable to pay the amount of Rs.61,962/-, which he had since paid. It was alleged by him that he was not liable to make the payment of the amount for which no electricity bill was provided to him. 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 referred to as the Act) was filed.

3.                      In their written statement the OPs took preliminary objection that the complaint was not maintainable as the complainant had filed a complaint before the Permanent Lok Adalat, U.T., Chandigarh with regard to disputed bills which was decided by it vide orders dated 15.10.2008. It was submitted that they had installed the following five meters in the premises of the complainant out of which two meters were disconnected during the period 12.9.2007 to 12.11.2007 for non-payment of bills :-

It was stated that Rs.14,761/- and Rs.43,810/- were outstanding against a/c No.2616/803400 and a/c No.2616/803402H and that the representative of the complainant was apprised of the amount of Rs.58,571/- which after adding surcharge became Rs.59,485/- and the same was transferred to a/c No.2616/803401G which is installed in the same premises and in the name of same consumer.  It was submitted that the bimonthly bills were regularly issued and delivered to the consumer’s premises. The receipt of legal notice was denied. It was also denied that any harassment was caused to the complainant. Remaining averments were denied, being wrong. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.

4.                      Parties led evidence in support of their case.

5.                      After hearing the ld. Counsel for the complainant, ld. GP for the OP and on going through the evidence on record, the ld. District Forum dismissed the complaint, as stated above.

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

7.                      We have heard the ld. Counsel for the appellant, ld. GP for the OPs and have also gone through the evidence on record of the case carefully. 

8.                      The contention of the complainant/appellant is that admittedly there were five meters in the preemies; that the bills of two meters was never sent to him; that the said two meters were disconnected due to non payment of the bills; that the premises, which was being served by the said meters, was lying closed and there was no consumption and, therefore, there could not be any electricity bill for consumption.  It is also argued that the OP could not recover any amount with respect to the said two meters after their disconnection.  As against it, the case of the OP is that the amount recoverable in respect of the said two meters was added to the bill of the third meter in question because all the meters were in the name of the complainant and existed in the same premises. According to the OP the complainant is liable to pay the said amount and the recovery from him is perfectly legal and valid.  It is argued that the impugned order should be maintained.

9.                      Even if the premises covered by the said meters were lying closed, the complainant was liable to pay minimum charges on average basis and, therefore, he was liable to pay the bills.  If the meters were disconnected for non payment, the OP is fully within its right to add the said amount to the bill in question and recover it from the complainant. The complainant has not been able to produce any law or rules to suggest that after disconnection the complainant is not liable to pay arrears of the electricity for non payment of which the meters were disconnected.  The action taken by the OP is, therefore, perfectly legal and valid and the complainant cannot agitate the recovery of the said amount or the disconnection of the meter on any such ground. 

10.                  As regards the liability of the complainant to pay the arrears, the same has already been decided by the permanent Lok Adalat vide their order (Annexure C-10) dated 15.10.2008. It was held that the complainant was liable to pay the amount of Rs.61,962/- in respect of the said meters. The case of the OP is that a portion of the bill amount was paid by him in installments and thereafter he refused to pay the remaining amount due to which it was added to the third bill. The OP has produced the bill (Annexure R-3) for the period from 12.1.2009 to 12.3.2009 in which the arrears were added by them. These were earlier shown in the bill (Annexure P/12) also.  We are, therefore, of the opinion that the order passed by the ld. District Forum is perfectly legal and valid and does not call for any interference.  There is, therefore, no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed with litigation costs of Rs.5,000/-.

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

Pronounced.

2^nd November, 2011

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

Sd/-

[JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL]

MEMBER

hg