1.      Heard Mr. Daleep Dhyani, Advocate, for the petitioner and the respondent in person.

2.      Above revision petition has been filed against the order of  Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow dated 29.06.2022, passed in First Appeal No.546 of 2022 (arising from the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Aligarh, dated 21.04.2022 passed in CC No.83 of 2020), whereby State Commission upheld  the order of the District Commission and dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner.

3.      Dharampal Singh (the respondent) filed CC/83/2020, for directing the petitioner/opposite party to (1) refund the amount of Rs.175000/- imposed as interest @ 1.5% due to negligence of the opposite party; (2) refund an amount of Rs.18000/- taken from the complainant as miscellaneous charges; (3) refund an amount of Rs.6099/- charged as cost of meter; (4) to refund the amount charged for 10646 units of check meter; (5) award compensation of Rs.50000/- for mental and physical loss; and (6) any other relief which is deemed fit and proper in the facts of the case.

4.      According to the complainant during Covid-19, the electricity bill of the complainant was not issued for five months from March to July, 2020. On the request of the complainant, the opposite party prepared a bill dated 15.07.2020 for an amount of Rs.72247/- including the arrears for the last five months, which was immediately paid by the complainant. On 07.08.2020, the meter reader has given a bill of Rs.22784/- including the arrears, which were already deposited by the complainant. In the month of September, 2020 the complainant did not receive the electricity bill. Again on the request of the complainant, the opposite party issued a bill of Rs.59953/- showing 10646 units measured by the check meter which was absolutely wrong and the complainant did not pay the bill amount. In the month of October, 2022, the complainant received a bill of Rs.68274/- including an amount of Rs.59953/- as arrear for the month of September, 2020. The wrong bills were generated due to faulty meter because earlier 4 kw (3 phase) meter was installed and on 14.03.2020 the opposite party replaced that meter with 6 kw (3 phase) meter and also included the cost of the meter Rs.6099/- in the bill.  

5.      The opposite parties filed their written version and contested the case. It was stated that as the electricity load of the complainant was found in excess as such the opposite party removed the old meter and installed the new meter as per load of the complainant. The bills were issued as per meter reading. The Assistant Engineer (Meter), Electricity Urban Laboratory-III, Aligarh also gave a report that the reading of the meter was found to be correct. It was also stated that the complainant is not a consumer, therefore, the District Commission, Aligarh did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and the appropriate forum is the Electricity Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum at 33/11, KV Sub, Kawarsi, Ramghat Road, Aligarh. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

6.      District Commission, by its judgment dated 21.04.2022 found that the electricity bills issued to the complainant were not correct and held that the complainant was liable to pay the bill for 3988 units only and directed the opposite party to adjust the amount paid by the complainant, except the charges for 3988 units, in the next month’s electricity bill. The opposite party was also directed to pay Rs.1000/- as compensation for physical and mental harassment. The opposite party filed an appeal with the State Commission, which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 29.06.2022. Hence, the opposite party has filed the present revision petition.

7.      The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that both the Fora below failed to appreciate that the total units consumed by the complainant till December, 2020 were 22721 for which bill was issued and even the respondent paid the same. The District Forum as well as the State Commission have wrongly calculated the amount. At the time when the main meter was removed the reading was recorded as 14567. Admittedly, the complainant had made payment upto 13676 units. The balance amount to be paid was for 891 units at the time of removal of main meter on 08.08.2020. Thereafter, the complainant used 3097 units upto 25.09.2020. Therefore, the District Commission directed the opposite party to charge the amount for 3988 (891 + 3097) units and adjust the balance amount in the next month’s bill. The State Commission also concurred with the finding of the District Forum. In such circumstances the findings of Commissions below cannot be interfered by this Commission. Supreme Court in Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. (2011) 11 SCC 269 and Loudres Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel Vs. H & R Johson (India) Ltd. (2016) 8 SCC 286, held that National Commission has no jurisdiction to set aside concurrent findings of facts recorded by two foras below, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. As far as question of maintainability is concerned, the Consumer Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint against the electricity department, except relating to theft of electricity.

O R D E R

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the revision petition has no merit and is dismissed.