Haryana

StateCommission

RA/565/2017

Hari Chand - Complainant(s)

Versus

Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Mandeep Singh Khillan, Advocate for complainant-Hari Chand

24 Apr 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

Remand Appeals No. 565 & 571 of 2017

First Appeals No.1927 & 2061 of 2002

Date of Institution:24.04.2017/2002

Date of Decision: 24.04.2018

 

Appeal No.565 of 2017 (1927 of 2002)

 

Hari Chand s/o Sh. Ram Chand, Resident of House No.1504, Sector-13, Urban Estate, Karnal.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

1.      Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited (presently Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited) through its Chairman, Shakti Bhawan, Panchkula. 

2.      Sub Divisional Officer, City Sub Division, Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited (PRESENTLY Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited) near Bus Stand, Karnal.

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties 

 

Appeal No.571 of 2017 (2061 of 2002)

1.      Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited through its Assistant Executive Engineer, Operation, Sub Division, District Karnal. 

2.      Sub Divisional Officer, City Sub Division, Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited near Bus Stand, Karnal.

3.      Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited through its Chairman, Shakti Bhawan, Panchkula.

                                      Appellants-Opposite Parties 

Versus

 

Hari Chand s/o Sh. Ram Chand, Resident of House No.2144, Sector-13, Urban Estate, Karnal.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

Argued by:          Shri Mandeep Singh Khillan, Advocate for complainant-Hari Chand.

                             Mrs. Alka Joshi, Advocate for HVPNL-Opposite Parties.

                                                   O R D E R

 

BALBIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

                 This order shall dispose of afore-mentioned two Remand Appeals bearing No.565 and 571 of 2017 (First Appeals No.1927 & 2061 of 2002) having arisen out of common order dated July 25^th, 2002 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal (for short the ‘District Forum’), in complaint No.1200 of 1999.     

2.                M/s Haryana Cold Storage, Hansi Road, Karnal was taken on lease by complainant-Hari Chand for a period of one year w.e.f. January 01^st, 1999 from its partner Shri Arvind Kumar. A commercial electricity connection had already been provided by Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited (HVPNL)-Opposite Parties in the above mentioned cold storage building having electricity connection No.MS-27 in the name of Om Parkash owner of the cold storage. The complainant used to pay electricity consumption bills of the above mentioned connection regularly w.e.f. January 01^st, 1999. The complainant received electricity bills in the month of January, February and March, 1999 amounting to Rs.3988/-, Rs.2982/- and Rs.3990/- respectively. In the electricity bill for the month of April, 1999 the complainant received electricity bill amounting to Rs.97,702/-.

3.                Regarding consumption of electricity, months of January, February and March are considered as a lean season months and actual season of the cold storage starts from the month of April every year. All of a sudden, there was so much increase in consumption of electricity as shown in the next electricity bills. The complainant received electricity bills regarding the months of May, June, July, August and September amounting to Rs.91,795/-, Rs.97,823/-, Rs.92,674/-, Rs.86,681/- and Rs.96,532/- respectively. Facing this situation, the complainant filed an application with the opposite party No.2 with a request for check of the electricity meter as the electricity meter was showing abnormal consumption of electricity. The electricity meter was not got checked but in the mean time the complainant was allowed to deposit electricity bills of the above mentioned months to the tune of Rs.60,000/-, Rs.80,000/-, Rs.90,000/- and Rs.80,000/- regarding the period from the month of June, 1999 up to the month of September, 1999 respectively. Prior to it, during the previous five years, the electricity consumption never exceeded amounting to Rs.45,000/- in any month. It is also not a case of extension of load.

4.                The complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ‘the Act, 1986’) with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to install a check meter parallel with the existing meter and to issue revised electricity bills regarding the months from January, 1999 onwards. As per meter reading shown in the check meter and to reduce the electricity bill amount proportionately as the electricity meter is running fast, the opposite parties be also directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- on account of un-necessary harassment and mental agony.

5.                The opposite parties in their written version have taken plea that the complainant is not covered under the definition of consumer as provided under the Act, 1986 as the electricity connection is in the name of Om Parkash and that it is not a case of deficiency in service. It is also pleaded that the District Forum has no jurisdiction to decide this complaint. It is admitted fact that the electricity connection No.MS-27 installed in the premises of the Cold Storage is in the name of Om Parkash.  The electricity bills are being sent on the basis of actual consumption regularly. Considering request of the complainant, a check meter was installed on 10^th November, 1999 mentioning initial reading as 00010x10. The electricity meter reading was recorded in the check meter up to 16^th December, 1999 as 00334x10. The electricity meter reading was recorded in the check meter up to 16^th December, 1999 as 2407. As per reading in the check meter, the consumption of electricity in terms of units was shown as 2407. The electricity meter is having double multiplier factor of ¾.  On the existing meter, the reading as on 10^th November, 1999 was 697164 and on 16^th December, 1999 as 699571 units. This electricity meter is also having multiplier factor of 3x4. In this way, consumption of electricity as mentioned in the existing electricity meter was shown as 1805 units and in the check meter, the consumption was shown as 2407 units. In this way, the electricity meter already in existence was found 25.7% slow. The electricity bill shall be overhauled as per result of the check meter. On the basis of actual reading recorded by the existing meter also, an amount of Rs.1,75,798/- is due towards the consumer. The complainant is liable to make payment of the amount as per details given in the ledger. It is prayed that the complaint filed by the complainant be dismissed.

6.                It will be pertinent to mention here that during the pendency of the complaint before the learned District Forum, considering an application filed by the complainant, it was directed that the electricity connection be restored within 48 hours in case the complainant deposits an amount of Rs.55,000/- within 15 days out of the total amount due as on 22^nd March, 2000 as Rs.1,68,000/- subject to decision of the complaint. It will be pertinent to mention here that earlier considering request of the complainant, the existing electricity meter bearing No.MS-27 was removed from the premises of the complainant vide order dated 09^th March, 2001 passed by the District Forum. On 19^th April, 2001 with the consent of both the parties, the existing electricity meter was sent to Chief Electrical Inspector, Haryana for testing its accuracy mentioning that the findings recorded by the Chief Electrical Inspector, Haryana will be binding upon both the parties. In this way, the disputed electricity meter was sent to the Chief Electricity Inspector, Haryana for testing accuracy of the meter and to submit his report within 90 days after issuing notice to both the parties. It was made clear that after receiving report, the complainant shall be responsible to deposit amount if found due towards the disputed amount and if excess amount has already been deposited, the complainant shall be entitled for refund of the same.

7.                Parties led evidence in support of their respective claims before the District Forum.

8.                After hearing arguments vide dated 25^th July, 2002 passed by the learned District Forum, the complaint filed by the complainant was allowed directing the opposite parties to overhaul the account of the complainant regarding the electricity connection from the month of April, 1999 till the replacement of the electricity meter with a new one on the basis of average consumption of the corresponding month of the preceding year. The opposite parties were directed to prepare fresh electricity bill as indicated above within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. The complainant shall deposit the amount of the said overhauled electricity meter within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the bill and in case excess amount has already been paid, the complainant shall be entitled for refund of the same and the opposite parties shall adjust that amount in future electricity bills of the complainant. It was also ordered that the amount of Rs.55,000/- if deposited by the complainant vide order dated 03th March, 2000, that amount also will be adjusted.

9.                Aggrieved with the order dated 25^th July, 2002 passed by the learned District Forum, the complainant filed First Appeal No.1927 of 2002 with a prayer to modify the impugned order dated 25^th July, 2002 and to award interest on the amount payable by the opposite parties. Report of the Chief Electrical Inspector was ordered to be considered as report of the arbitrator. The appellant-complainant also prayed for awarding costs of litigation and compensation on account of harassment and mental agony.

10.              The opposite parties also filed First Appeal No.2061 of 2002 with a prayer to set aside the order dated 25^th July, 2002 and to dismiss the complaint filed by the complainant.

11.              Vide order dated 27^th December, 2010 passed by the Additional Bench of this Commission, the appeal No.2067 2002 filed by the opposite parties was allowed and the order dated 25^th July, 2002 passed by the learned District Forum was set aside giving findings that the complainant is not covered under the definition of ‘consumer’ as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act as the electricity meter was in the name of Om Parkash owner of Cold storage building. Consequently, First Appeal No.1927 of 2002 filed by the complainant for enhancement of compensation was also dismissed.

12.              Against the order dated 27^th December, 2010 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana (for short ‘the State Commission’), the complainant preferred to file Revision Petitions No.867 and 868 of 2011 before the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (for short ‘the National Commission’). Both the revision petitions mentioned above were allowed by the Hon’ble National Commission and findings were given that as the complainant was lease holder of the premises of M/s Haryana Cold Storage, Hansi Road, Karnal, the complainant is covered under the definition of ‘consumer’ as provided under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

13.              The order passed by the State Commission was set aside and the appeals were remanded back to this Commission for fresh decision of the appeals on merits after considering the averments made by the parties and after obtaining evidence filed by the parties, regarding running of the electricity meter.  Directions were given to bring out clearly whether the charges levied by the opposite parties in the bills issued by them were on the higher side, keeping in view the readings obtained through the electricity test meter.

14.              We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case files.

15.              As per version of the complainant M/s Haryana Cold Storage, Hansi Road, Karnal was taken on lease from Arvind Kumar partner of M/s Haryana Cold Storage, Hansi Road, Karnal for a period of one year from 01^st January, 1999 up to 31^st December, 1999.  It is evident from the agreement of lease (Exhibit C-3).  Much discussion is not needed in this regard as the Hon’ble National Commission has already given findings complainant being lease holder of M/s Haryana Cold Storage where the electricity meter bearing account No.MS-27 is installed, is covered under the definition of ‘consumer’ as provided under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant received electricity bills in the months of January, February and March, 1999 amounting to Rs.3988/-, Rs.2982/- and Rs.3990/- respectively. In the electricity bill for the month of April, 1999 the complainant received electricity bill amounting to Rs.97,702/-.

16.              Regarding consumption of electricity, months of January, February and March are considered as a lean season months and actual season of the cold storage starts from the month of April every year. All of a sudden, there was so much increase in consumption of electricity as shown in the next electricity bills. The complainant received electricity bills regarding the months of January, February and March, 1999 amounting to Rs.3988/-, Rs.2982/- and Rs.3990/- respectively during off season. The problem arose when during peak season concerned with the working of the cold storage, the electricity bills regarding the months from April to September, 1999 were received amounting to Rs.97702/-, Rs.91,795/-, Rs.97,823/-, Rs.92,674/-, Rs.86,681/- and Rs.96,532/- respectively. Facing this situation, the complainant submitted an application for checking of the electricity meter suspecting that the electricity meter was running fast. The electricity meter was got checked and during this period admittedly the complainant was allowed to deposit an amount of Rs.60,000/-, Rs.80,000/-, Rs.90,000/- and Rs.80,000/- regarding the months from June, 1999 up to September, 1999 respectively. Check meter was installed from 10^th November, 1999 up to 16^th December, 1999. Check meter report prepared by S.D.O. City, HVPNL, Karnal is Exhibit O-2 showing that the electricity meter already in existence was 25.7% slow.

17.              During pendency of the complaint before the District Forum, the electricity bill dated 22^nd March, 2000 amounting to Rs.1,68,000/- was received by the complainant and an order was passed by the learned District Forum on 03^rd March, 2000 that the electricity connection be restored within 48 hours in case the complainant deposits an amount of Rs.55,000/- subject to final decision of the complaint case.

18.              During pendency of the complaint case, the complainant also filed an application for summoning the report prepared by a team during checking of the premises of the complainant. For consideration the existing electricity meter No.MS-27 was removed from the premises of the complainant vide order dated 19^th March, 2001 passed by the learned District Forum. Facing this situation, both the parties agreed that the existing electricity meter be sent to the Chief Electrical Inspector, Haryana for testing its accuracy and to give findings and the findings given by the Chief Electrical Inspector, Haryana will be binding upon both the parties. Statements of the complainant and Shri Hanumant Singh, Advocate were recorded in this regard. Accordingly, the electricity meter was sent to the Chief Electrical Inspector for testing the accuracy of the electricity meter. After notice to both the parties, Chief Electrical Inspector was directed to submit his report within 90 days. It was ordered that after receiving report, the complainant shall be responsible to deposit the amount if found due towards the disputed amount of account No.MS-27 and the complainant shall also be entitled to get refund of the amount already deposited  on the basis of the report of the Chief Electrical Inspector.

19.              After giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties, Chief Electrical Inspector, Haryana submitted his report in the shape of arbitration award dated 03^rd May, 2002. Findings have been given by the learned District Forum on the basis of the award passed by the Chief Electrical Inspector dated 03^rd May, 2002. We want to make it clear that although in the order dated 19^th April, 2001 it is nowhere mentioned that the Chief Electrical Inspector, Haryana has been appointed as an arbitrator but order was passed with consent of both the parties mentioning that after recording their statements, parties shall be bound by the findings given by Chief Electrical Inspector regarding accuracy of the electricity meter. Anyhow, it is clear that the Chief Electrical Inspector was appointed with the consent of both the parties and both parties agreed that the findings given by the Chief Electrical Inspector shall be binding. Chief Electrical Inspector in his report dated 03^rd May, 2002 did not agree with the earlier test report that electricity meter was 25.7% slow. In the report, it is mentioned in clear words that in fact the existing electricity meter was found running fast after installation of parallel check meter. The reasons in detail are given in the report dated 03^rd May, 2002. We feel, report of the Chief Electrical Inspector should be believed. Firstly, the Chief Electrical Inspector was appointed for checking of the electricity meter with consent of both the parties by the District Forum and he himself is an employee of HVPNL. Furthermore, the Chief Electrical Inspector submitted his report after notice and giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties and submitted his report as arbitrator, whereas earlier checking report Exhibit O-2 was prepared by S.D.O., HVPNL, Karnal himself without giving opportunity of hearing. Learned District Forum also has given due weight to the report of the Chief Electrical Inspector. 

20.              Moreover, it is not a case of increase in the load and it is not disputed that even during peak season during last five years, electricity bill amount never exceeded to Rs.45,000/-. The Chief Electrical Inspector has suggested that the monthly electricity bills of the complainant from 01^st, April, 1999 up to 31^st December, 2000 may be charged on the basis of monthly average consumption regarding the period from 01^st April, 1998 up to March 31^st, 1999. Learned District Forum has given finding that the opposite parties should overhaul the account of the complainant regarding the period from the month of April, 1999 till the replacement of defective electricity meter with a new one on the basis of average consumption of the corresponding months of the preceding year. As the effective working of the cold storage is during peak season, the view taken by the learned District Forum appears to be more reasonable.  Regarding interest amount claimed, relief has already been given by the learned District Forum. Keeping in my all the facts and circumstances mentioned above and controversies involved in this case and as the complainant also did not make payment of the electricity bills regularly, it is not a fit case where the complainant should be granted any more relief in the shape of compensation on account of un-necessary harassment and mental agony etc.

21.              As a result, as per discussions above in detail, we find no illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum. Hence, finding no merit both these appeals stand dismissed.

 

Announced: 24.04.2018

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

CL