APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS

ORDER

C.VISWANATH

1.          The present Revision Petition is filed by the Petitioner under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”) in F.A. No. 598 & 1149 of 2006 dated 04.05.2011.

2.          In the Complaint Case, the Petitioner/Complainant stated that the owner of Block No.14/A of Laxmi Apartment Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. was Mr. Vinodrai Kotadiya. He had purchased the said property from the original Owner Laxmidas Karamshibhai Bhut by sale deed on 03.02.1998. The Petitioner purchased the aforesaid property in the year 1988. The Petitioner also managed the maintenance of the above said block, paying the bills for water, light, house-tax, etc.  The Petitioner was living alone in the above said property and that too hardly for one to two days in a week.  The bi-monthly power consumption came to 20 to 25 units.  The Respondents/Opposite Parties, however, intentionally issued wrong and arbitrary bills for higher amounts.

3.          The Petitioner stated that the Respondents charged more than the consumption for the following time period:-

v In March-April 1994, the Respondents had with allegation and wrong remark “link down” and “F” (Faulty) issued bill for 90 units against 17 units of consumption.

v In May-June, 1994 without taking the meter reading and with remark “To Transfer” and “F” issued bill for 70 units.

v Bill was issued in July-August, 1994 for 70 units, F remark was cancelled.

v In September-October, 1994 against consumption of 65 units, bill was issued for 70 units with “F” remark.

v In November-December, 1994 against the meter reading for 18 units, bill was issued for 70 units consumption with remarks “F” and “No body seal of meter”.

v From 10.03.1995 to 18.03.1995, Petitioner was out of station and his house was closed. During this period on 13.03.1995 they alleged, without any evidence “meter is dislinked and ceased and payment of this bill should be accepted only after filling the form by the Petitioner”.  Initially the bill for January-February 1995 was prepared for 70 units consumption and for 70 units average consumption and after scratching out it meter reader was unauthorisedly raised it for 120 units consumption and for 120 units average consumption. The Respondents Board served this bill by post with false demand notice.

4.          Petitioner visited the Respondents’ local office several times and requested to cancel the objectionable remarks and asked them to issue a bill for consumption according to meter reading but the Respondents were not rectifying the bills. The Petitioner, therefore, issued a notice to the Respondents on 2.04.1995.   The Respondent fixed new meter on 1.5.1995 and tested it on 9.5.1995 in the Board’s Laboratory whereby seal wires of the meter were found to be missing, totally destroyed due to corrosion and even in down position of link meter was working properly. It was also noted that “meter’s PP link found in order and meter is not tempered with”.  It was further noted that “this is not a case of Power theft and the meter was found OK in the laboratory test.  Despite this, bill for 120 units of consumption was served and the Respondents harassed the Petitioner by preparing wrong bills for huge amounts. A Complaint was, thus, filed by the Petitioner alleging deficiency of service on the part of Respondents.

5.              TheComplaint was contested by the Respondents whereby it was reiterated that the forum had no jurisdiction to hear this complaint. The relief claimed by the Complainant regarding refund of amount and compensation, could be granted only by a Civil Court. The Petitioner was not the owner of the suit premises and he had no power to file the Complaint. That the original owners Laxmidas Bhut and Vinodrai Kotadiya sold the said property to the Petitioner was not in the knowledge of the Respondents and hence denied the same.   As per the Respondents, the Petitioner was issued legal bills as per the consumption. There was no reason for the Respondents to issue false bills. The Petitioner had not paid bills other than the disputed bills. The Petitioner applied for change of meter stating that he had consumption of one 40 watt bulb, one 60 watt bulb, a tube light and a fan and one zero watt lamp in the said block. On 09.05.1995 new meter was installed in the presence of the Petitioner, and laboratory test was done which showed that the meter was working properly. It was further reiterated that if the Petitioner did not pay the bills within a reasonable time, the Respondents were entitled to disconnect electric supply.  Hence, the Complaint deserved to be dismissed.

6.              The District Forum after perusing the evidences and hearing the arguments reached to the conclusion that there was deficiency on the part of the respondent and allowed the complaint and awarded compensation as under:-

“a. The bills issued by the Respondents to the Petitioner for March 1994 to July-August 1996 are held to be illegal and if the Petitioner has already paid the amount of these bills to the Respondents, the amount collected in excess than actual consumption of the Petitioner be adjusted to the Petitioner by the Respondents. If the Petitioner has not paid the amount of these bills, actual consumption be issued by the Respondents to the Petitioner and the Petitioner shall pay the same.

b. The amount of electricity collected by the Respondents from the Petitioner of the actual consumption is less than 40 units and electricity duty is collected, the same be adjusted to the Petitioner. The Respondents pay Rs.50,000/- towards mental harassment to the Petitioner and Rs.5,000 towards costs of this Complaint. The Respondents shall bear their own costs

The disconnected electric connection of the Petitioner be restored within 15 days from the date of this order without any charge failing which the Respondents shall be liable to pay Rs.200/- per day to the Petitioner.”

7.              Not satisfied with the amount of compensation granted by the District Forum, the petitioner filed appeal No. 598/2006. The State Commission after hearing the parties and perusing the record reached to the following conclusion: -

“18.  Main point of the complaint of the complainant’s is only that his bimonthly power consumption is for 20 to 30 units.  Inspite of this since about from April, 1994 opponent is not issuing bills as per meter reading and issues bills under illegal remarks like ‘meter is faulty’, ‘Meter is link down’.  And electricity duty should be calculated on electricity consumption instead of this it is calculated on total bill amount and meter was tested in opponent’s laboratory and according to that meter was found “OK” and not found having played any mischief with the meter, and thus, it is not a case of power theft.  Laboratory test report is produced before the forum vide Annexure – 3/14 and on behalf of opponent Deputy Engineer Shri K.C. Patel has filed affidavit before forum vide Exh. 124 by which Shri Patel was cross examined by complainant and in this cross examination he confessed that as per laboratory test of the meter, no mischief having played with the meter is found and it means that complainant’s meter is not faulty and Shri Patel also confessed that bill presented before the forum vide Mark 3/6 is wrong and he agreed with that.  He has also accepted that bill issued as per Mark 3/9 of 90 units against the 20 units consumption and as per bill vide Mark 3/10 bill for 120 units issued against the power consumption of 13 units.  Further, Deputy Engineer has also confessed that the meter reader cannot decide that whether power consumption is wrong or right and that can be decided only from the record of consumption of preceding two months and average consumption of last six months of the consumer.  Shri Patel has also confessed that the bill vide Mark 3/10 power consumption has shown for 70 units and after scratching out it was raised for 120 units and he has further also confessed that meter reader has no authority for calculating average consumption for 120 units in bill as per the Mark 3/10 and so that one thing is proved that against the power consumption of complainant bills are issued arbitrarily for 90, 120, 70 units and when meter found ok as per the laboratory test and having not found tampered with the meter.  In this case, complainant should have given bills for actual consumption and Shri Patel has also confessed in his cross-examination that in bill marked as 3/16 old meter’s consumption for 18 units and new meter’s consumption for 3 units totaling 21 units are noted that is correct.  In spite of this, bill has been issued for 120 units and opponent’s deputy engineer could not clarify this and thus complainant could prove that opponent has issued illegal bills for manipulating unit consumption instead of actual power consumption and in case if this amount is not paid then threatened that power connection will be disconnected.  Therefore, it is also proved that from March – April 1994, to May – June 1995 bills are issued to the complainant which are illegal and not issued as per power consumption and on 01/04/1997 power connection of the complainant was disconnected by the opponent. whereas, as per laboratory test meter found ok and thus opponent should have issued power consumption bills as per the actual power consumption.

19.   Now after above discussion the only question is to decide that whether complainant is entitled to get any relief and from March – April, 1994 to in last bill of December – January 1999 difference between actual power consumption and of average bill goes to of amount like Rs.1863/-.  Such type of sheet or calculation has been prepared by the complainant himself.  And so that it can be said that amount of dispute between the parties for average bill and actual consumption bill is within Rs.2000/- and in case if complainant would have paid this amount then power connection would have not disconnected and under this circumstances compensation demanded for like Rs.3 to 4 lacs by the Complainant cannot be accepted and it is not found that electricity connection of the Complainant was disconnected for the period as stated by the Complainant and hence order passed by the learned Forum to pay the amount like Rs.50,000/- towards mental torture is not found proper and in accordance with the evidence on the record and amending in the amount towards mental tortures suffered by the complainant Rs.7000/- to be paid by the opponent and Rs.2000/- towards cost of the complaint and after amending as above the rest of the order should be kept as it is and pass the final order as under:-

Order

1.     Appeal No. 598/2006 stands dismissed.

2.     Appeal no. 1149/2006 is partly allowed and Hon’ble forum’s judgment is amended that as the order passed to pay Rs.50,000/- towards mental torture to the complainant, instead of that Rs.7,000/- should be paid by the opponent and complainant cost should be paid Rs.2,000/- instead of Rs.5,000/- and for restoration of electricity connection after delay of 15 days the opponent have to pay Rs.200/- per day to the complainant that order stands cancelled and it is decided that opponent has to provide the power connection immediately to the complainant without recovering any charges and except this the forum’s order stands as it is.

3.     As per the presentation made by appellant’s advocate under Appeal No. 1149/2006 they have deposited Rs.25,000/- before commission and after verifying the same and if this amount is found credited and then the same and including whatever interest credited in that case total amount should be paid to the appellant’s advocate by A/c payee cheque to hand over to the appellant.

4.     The parties has to bear their own cost.

5.     True copy of this judgment should be kept in the file of Appeal No. 1149/2006.”

8.              We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. The findings of the State Commission while modifying the order of the District Forum are based on the evidence and facts placed on record. The State Commission has given sound reasons for modifying the order of the District Forum.  In the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the State Commission is just and proper. We find no ground to intervene with the impugned order. The present Revision Petition has no merit. The Revision Petition is dismissed.