ORDER

(Per: Mrs. Veena Sharma, Member):

            This appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, has been preferred by the appellants-Electricity Department against the order dated 10.02.2014 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 109 of 2013.  By the impugned order, the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the complainant to deposit a sum of Rs. 3,79,420/- with the Electricity Department within 15 days from the date of order.  The District Forum has directed the Electricity Department to issue the electricity bills according to the consumption of electricity units and to ensure the facility of reading card on meter board and also install a check meter for correct meter reading.  The District Forum has quashed the amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- from the disputed amount of Rs. 13,79,420/- and also imposed a damage of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the Electricity Department. If the complainant deposited Rs. 3,79,420/- within 15 days from the date of order with the Electricity Department, the Electricity Department shall issue a receipt of the said amount of Rs. 3,79,420/- to the complainant, failing which the order of damage shall be effective.

2.       Briefly stated the facts of the case, as mentioned in the consumer complaint are that the complainant has an electricity connection No. 068714 bearing meter No. 327928 (old meter No. 031077) in his premises.  The opposite party No. 1 never issued any electricity bill according to the meter unit to the complainant.  On 12.01.2012 the opposite party No. 1 has issued an electricity bill to the complainant for a sum of Rs. 8,543/- for the period from 30.11.2011 to 30.12.2011 (duration one month).  Again an electricity bill was issued on 04.02.2012 for a sum of Rs. 11,885/- for the period from 30.12.2011 to 28.01.2012 (duration on month), which was paid by the complainant on 16.03.2012. After submitting the above bills, the electricity department sent regular bills in continuation and the complainant deposited all the bills. But a bill of Rs. 11,98,208.19ps. was sent to the complainant for a duration approx. one month, i.e. 30.09.2012 to 26.10.2012. The complainant was threatened that if he neglects to pay the said amount against the bill, a recovery will be issued against the complainant and they have power to disconnect the supply or cut of the supply.  In the month of November, 2012, the electricity meter of the complainant was replaced without any information and no sealing report was provided to the complainant. A new electricity meter bearing No. 327928 was installed in place of old meter in complainant’s premises. A bill of Rs. 12,13,635/- was sent by the electricity department to the complainant on 13.12.2012 for 60 units of new meter for a period from 28.10.2012 to 30.11.2012 (one month’s duration). The complainant demanded sealing report from the electricity department, but they did not provide any sealing report to the complainant. A bill of             Rs. 12,88,693/- was issued to the complainant and the complainant was forced to deposit Rs. 1,30,000/- with the electricity department. Further a bill of Rs. 13,79,420.12ps. was sent to the complainant with a warning of discontinuation of the supply, if the bill is not paid. The complainant lodged a complaint before the Electricity Department that without taking meter reading the electricity bills were sent to him but the opposite parties did not consider it, so there is a great deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  Due to this act of the opposite parties, the complainant suffered a great mental agony. Therefore, due to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar.

3.       The opposite parties-Electricity Department have stated in their written statement that the meter No. 031077 was installed on 20.05.2004 in the complainant’s premises. On 26.10.2012, a new meter No. 327928 was installed in complainant’s premises replacing the old meter. The reading of the old meter at the time of replacement was 373288. The said meter was changed in the presence of the complainant and he signed on it. The sealing report was provided to the complainant.  It is wrong and denied that the meter was changed in complainant’s absence and no sealing report was provided to him.  The complainant also alleged in his consumer complaint that no meter reader ever came to take reading in his premises, but actual facts are that the complainant colludes with the meter reader, the readings recorded were not reported properly.  Due to this, actual units/readings continued to pile-up and could not charge in the bills.  When the new meter was installed in the month of October, 2012 by S.D.O., Bahadrabad, then the bill of Rs. 11,98,228/- was sent to the complainant. No penalty was imposed on complainant, as the meter reader/staff of the opposite parties was in collusion with the complainant. The bill was sent to the complainant only for the units recorded in the meter. It is further submitted that the old meter of the complainant was installed on 20.05.2004 and the same was removed on 26.10.2012.  On 26.10.2012, the meter reading of the old meter was 373288.  So the average consumption is 3660 units per month.  An average reading is 7270 units per month in newly installed meter, which is accepted to the complainant.  This clearly shows that the complainant had consumed the units shown.  In the premises of complainant 8 kw. electricity load was sanctioned, but the consumption of electricity in the month of October, 2012, was 12.28 kw., in November, 2012, 26.74 kw., in December, 2012, 28.24 kw., in January, 2013, 32.90 kw., in February, 2013, 30.70 kw. and in the month of March, 2013, 30.20 kw. load was found.  The complainant never applied to increase his electricity load.  Learned counsel for the appellants cited a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Swastic Industries vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Board; 1997 (2) Supreme 439.  In para     No. 5 of this case the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that “there is no deficiency of service in making supplementary demand for escaped bill.  There may be negligence or collusion by subordinate staff in not properly recording the reading or allowing pilferage to the consumers.  That would be deficiency of service under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  We do not find any illegality warranting interference.” The complainant has not deposited any bill from 16.03.2012, so the opposite parties are having rights to disconnect the electricity supply due to non-payment of bills. The complainant took the connection for domestic use, but the same has been used in the Ashram.  There is a difference between domestic and electricity used in Ashram.  The opposite parties have charged the bill according to the consumption of electricity by the complainant. No penalty was imposed on electricity bills. So the complainant is not liable to get any compensation from the opposite parties.  Therefore, the consumer complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed.

4.       The District Forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, has allowed the consumer complaint vide order dated 10.02.2014 in the above terms. Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite parties-Electricity Department has filed the present appeal.

5.       We have heard Sh. S.M. Jain, learned counsel for the appellants and   Sh. Anil Rawat, learned counsel for respondent and have also perused the material placed on record.

6.       Learned counsel for the appellants-Electricity Department has submitted that the District Forum has failed to appreciate that Sh. Dushyant Kumar Chouhan was not a consumer and not authorized by Mahayogi Pilot Baba Chela Avtar Hariyogmata Foundation Ashram-respondent by attorney deed to sign the present complaint. The complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is a statutory complaint cannot be filed by any person claiming to be the Manager or any other officer bearer, in the name of the registered consumer. The District Forum has failed to appreciate that if the respondent has been charged less on account of any fraud or collusion by the respondent with the appellants’ subordinate staff, or for any carelessness of the subordinate employee, the consumer cannot get benefit thereof and the consumer continues liable to pay the bill, for the actual electricity consumed by it.  The Electricity Act is a special law and is governed by its own Rules and Regulations. The impugned order is against the provisions of law on the subject.  The consumption is measured by the meter and if the respondent colludes with meter reader or the appellants manages to get less units recorded and then if the respondent is charged for less units consumed, the Forum below cannot condone the such collusion or illegal act and absolve the respondent from payment of the units recorded in the meter, but charged in the bill when the actual consumed units were calculated from the readings were taken from the meter.  When the meter was checked in October, 2012 by SDO, Bahadrabad, at that time the reading in the meter was 373288.  So the disputed bill for a sum of Rs. 11,98,208/- was sent to the respondent for units not charged on this reading the average consumption of the respondent comes to 3660 units per month.  On the new meter installed on 26.10.2012, the average if the reading is 7270 units per month, which itself established that the respondent was not charged for the units recorded in the meter.  The District Forum has failed to appreciate that several bills filed by the respondent of NA.  The respondent did not file the past bills, but few bills of 2012-13 which was not enough.  The explanation of the bill showing the reading at the time of change of the meter, i.e. 60 has been given in the affidavit that it is an assumed reading, which does not affect the bill for consumption. The District Forum has wrongly awarded damages of             Rs. 1.00 lakh which are without any basis.  The respondent having deposited the amount of Rs. 3,78,420/- on 17.02.2014, hence the damages imposed by District Forum are not payable to the respondent, as per directions of the District Forum in the impugned judgment.  The impugned order directing the respondent to pay Rs. 3,79,429/- and waiving the demand of Rs. 10.00 lacs is wholly arbitrary illegal.  The statutory remedy has been provided for redressal of grievances relating to electricity under Section 142(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003. The impugned order is illegal and without jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside.

7.       Although learned counsel for respondent has filed objections against the appeal, but the objections during appeal are not maintainable.

8.       There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the respondent was sanctioned an electricity connection by the appellants-Electricity Department, who never prayed to upgrade its load.  The only dispute between the parties is that the bills sent by the appellants to the respondent was not according to the consumption of electricity.

9.       The case in hand before us is of electricity bills, which were not charged by the appellants from the respondent. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the respondent was sanctioned an electricity connection of 8kw. in the Ashram, but according to the appellants the consumption of electricity in the premises of respondent had been found up to 30.20kw. The only dispute between the parties that the bills sent by the appellants to the respondent on the basis of units recorded in the bill after installation of new meter, is correct or not?  In the present case the Electricity Department had installed a new meter in the month of November, 2012 in the respondent’s premises. Therefore, period of unauthorized use of electricity, which cannot be charged by the appellants from respondent, as there was a collusion between the respondent and appellants’ staff.  So there was a difference of reading in old meter and new meter.    

10.     After perusal of the evidence and record, we are of the view that when the appellants installed a new meter on 26.02.2012 replacing the old meter, than it was found that the reading of the old meter at that time was 373288 units.  As it is alleged that the respondent colludes with the meter reader, the above readings were not recorded properly.  Due to these actual units or readings continuously to pile up and cannot charged in the bills.  So the bill of Rs. 13,79,420/- was sent to the respondent.  No penalty was imposed on respondent, as the meter reader/staff of the appellants were in collusion with the respondent. On the meter reading of old meter 373288, an average consumption of 3660 units per month was charged from the respondent. The bills which were issued to the respondent were those bills, which cannot be charged by the appellants from the respondent. The bills sent by the appellants to the respondent were on the basis of average consumption, therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the appellants. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that the District Forum has no power and jurisdiction to entertain the said matter. If there is any grievance, the consumer can have it redressed before the Appellate Authority of Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum of the Electricity Department.

11.     The District Forum has not properly considered the facts and circumstances of the case and has erred in allowing the consumer complaint per impugned order, which cannot legally be sustained and is liable to be set aside.   

12.     In the above circumstances, the consumer complaint was not legally maintainable before the District Forum.  As a result the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 10.02.2014 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar is set aside and consumer complaint is liable to be dismissed.    

13.     For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is allowed.  The impugned order dated 10.02.2014 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar is set aside and consumer complaint No. 109 of 2013 is dismissed.  Respondent is directed to file its complaint before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum of the Electricity Department within one month and also the appellants are directed not to take any action regarding disconnection of electricity of respondent in this period (one month from the date of order). No order as to costs. The amount deposited by the appellants as statutory amount at the time of filing the appeal be released in appellants’ favour.