ORDER

(Per: Mr. D.K. Tyagi, Member):

            This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been preferred by the appellants against the order dated 28.07.2014 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 157 of 2014.  By the impugned order, the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and cancelled the bill in question and directed the opposite party to issue a bill for the period from 06.01.2014 to 25.01.2014 on the basis of average electricity consumption and to receive the payment on the basis of new meter readings.  The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- towards compensation to the complainant within one month from the date of order, else the opposite party should adjust the same amount in the complainant’s bill.

2.       Briefly stated the facts of the case, as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant-Sh. Molak Ram is having an electricity connection No. 6910631024637 in his name and he is paying all the electricity bills regularly in the opposite party-Electricity Department and he is a consumer of the opposite party. The opposite party sent an electricity bill No. SBH-01161401060293 to the complainant for a period from 06.11.2013 to 06.01.2014 in which last meter reading was 4020 units and current meter reading was 4180 units.  In this bill Rs. 474/- was shown for current bill and Rs. 468/- was shown for the previous bill/arrear alongwith late fees             Rs. 11.22ps. and total bill for Rs. 953/-.  The complainant had paid the same to the opposite party.  On 25.01.2014 three persons from opposite party came to the complainant’s premises, who apprised the complainant that they will change the old electricity meter and new electronic meter will be installed.  At the time of change of old meter, the old meter fallen down on the floor and officials of the electricity department installed a new electronic meter with zero reading and took away the old meter with them.  The complainant asked for the readings of old meter, but they replied that due to fall of old meter on the floor, it is impossible for them to read the units in the old meter and the units of the old meter will be disclosed in the next electricity bill. The officials of the Electricity Department have also assured the complainant that due to non-reading of the units of old meter, next electricity bill from 06.01.2014 to 25.01.2014 will come on the basis of the average reading and they installed a new meter on 25.01.2014 with zero unit. The complainant received an electricity bill No. SBH-01131403060245 for the period from 06.01.2014 to 06.03.2014 in which 365 units were shown on the basis of new electricity meter and 3871 units were shown in total and a bill of Rs. 13,757/- was issued to the complainant. In this bill 365 units were shown on the basis of the new meter readings and rest 3506 units were shown on the basis of old meter readings.  There is no question of such huge numbers of units in the old meter because there were only 4180 units shown in the previous bill dated 06.01.2014.  It is not possible to consume 3506 units in the period from 06.01.2014 to 25.01.2014, i.e. 20 days’ time.  The complainant has pleaded that on the basis of consumption of energy, he has been receiving electricity bills for 150 to 250 units for the last several years.  The complainant has filed history of the consumption of electricity for the last several years.  The complainant approached to the Executive Engineer of the opposite party, but he had paid no heed and threatened to disconnect the electricity connection on the basis of non-payment of alleged false bill. The complainant has pleaded that on 06.01.2014, an electricity bill with meter reading of 4180 units was sent to him by the opposite party, even then from the date of change of old meter, i.e. 25.01.2014, bill of 3506 units for only 20 days was sent, which is false and shown the carelessness of the employees of the opposite party. This is a bill of 35 times of the average electricity consumption for only 20 days.  The complainant has ready and willing to deposit the electricity bill of 20 days from 06.01.2014 to 25.01.2014, if the opposite party send him a true electricity bill.  The complainant has prayed that the opposite party be directed to correct the said bill after deducting 3506 units and Rs. 13,088/- and also be directed to issue an electricity bill for the period from 06.01.2014 to 25.01.2014 on the basis of average electricity consumption. 

3.       The opposite party-U.P.C.L. filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that it is wrong to say that the old meter fallen down on the floor by negligence of the employees of the opposite party or they were not in a position to see the readings in the old electricity meter.  The true fact is that on 25.01.2014, employees of the Electricity Department had installed a new electronic meter in the premises of the complainant and the old meter was taken away by the employees of the opposite party in presence of one Sh. Sushil Kumar, who is a member of the complainant’s family, who was present and signed over the sealing report.  The employees of the opposite party had also provided a copy of the sealing report to Sh. Sushil Kumar. When the old meter was removed by the employees of the opposite party, at that time reading in the old meter was 7687 units.  In place of old meter, a new electronic meter was installed at the same time.  The opposite party has pleaded that the complainant was using a load more than 2KW, whereas the sanctioned load in the complainant’s premises is only 2KW.  It is stated that the complainant colluded with the meter reader and the meter reader did not record the actual readings in the meter in past, therefore, readings accumulated in the meter. This fact came to the knowledge of the opposite party at the time of change of meter that in old meter actual readings were 7687 units.  The complainant has filed a consumer complaint on false grounds.  The complainant is responsible to pay all the electricity bills sent to him for the consumption of electricity.  There is no deficiency in service and also no unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.

4.       The District Forum on an appreciation of the material on record has allowed the consumer complaint vide order dated 28.07.2014 in the above terms.  Aggrieved by the said order, the Electricity Department and Executive Engineer, EDD (Urban), Haridwar have filed the present appeal.

5.       We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 

6.       There is no dispute that the complainant-respondent is the consumer of the Electricity Department-appellants and is having an electricity connection No. 6910631024637 in his name.  There is also no dispute that on 25.01.2014 an old meter was replaced by a new electronic meter by the employees of the Electricity Department.  The only dispute is that whether a bill of electricity consumption dated 06.03.2014 shown total units 3871 for Rs. 13,757/- by the Electricity Department is correct or not ?

7.       Learned counsel for the appellants-Electricity Department has submitted before this Commission that the District Forum has not considered the pleas taken in the written statement and an affidavit of Executive Engineer of the appellants. The District Forum has wrongly held that if the previous bills were average from 150 to 200 units, then why the bill for the period of 06.11.2013 to 06.01.2014 was for Rs. 953/- and how it became to                Rs. 13,757/- for two months, i.e. 06.01.2014 to 06.03.2014.  The District Forum has failed to appreciate that the electronic meter was installed on 25.01.2014 while removing the old meter, there was reading of 7687/- in the old meter, which is duly mentioned in the sealing certificate duly signed by the respondent.  Thus, in the old meter there was a consumption of 3506 units in the old meter and consumption of 365 units in the new meter, total being 3871 units, which is shown in the chart submitted before the Forum.  The District Forum has wrongly believed the imaginary story narrated by the respondent about falling of the meter.  Sending the bill for the units consumed can never be a deficiency in service.  The District Forum has wrongly imposed Rs. 25,000/- without any reasons.  It is an undue enrichment of the respondent and loss to public money, which is not the intention of law under the Act.  Electricity is governed by its own rules framed by the Regulatory Commission that provides for resolution of billing disputes by the Electricity Grievance Redressal Forum established under Section 142(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003.  The District Forum has failed to appreciate that the respondent should have been directed to approach the EGRF for redressal of his alleged grievance on the electricity bill dispute.  The District Forum has failed to appreciate that the sealing certificate was prepared on 25.01.2014 and the representative of the respondent, Sh. Sushil Kumar, was present and sign the same.  Learned counsel has also argued that it is a common fact that the consumers collude with the lower staff/meter reader and get low reading reported by the meter reader, due to which the bill for actually consumed units are not reflected and the bills are prepared for very low units.  When the old meter was removed, then it was known that the actual meter reading is 7687 units. 

8.       Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the premises of the respondent is a small house of two rooms in which only two old persons reside.  Learned counsel also argued that if the meter reader of the Electricity Department is dishonest, even then this is a case of deficiency in service.  The appellants did not produce the said electricity meter before the District Forum and have never disclosed the fact that the old meter was defective in any form. 

9.       In the case of Civil Appeal No. 5466 of 2012; U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and others vs. Anis Ahmad; III (2013) CPJ I (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “The consumer complaints challenging electricity bills pertain to the unauthorized use and also assessment made under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 are not maintainable. Therefore, acts or person in indulging in “unauthorized use of electricity do not fall within the meaning of “complaint” and, therefore, the “complaint” against assessment under Section 126 is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum”.

10.     In the case of Kirti Agrotech Limited vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. & Ors.; II (2015) CPJ 41 (Maha.), the Maharashtra State Commission (Mumbai) has held that the complainant challenging electricity bills assessed under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 are not maintainable. 

11.     This Commission has also passed an order in Revision Petition No. 33 of 2008; U.P.C.L. vs. Ahmad Hussain, that “in our opinion, the Consumer Fora cannot decide whether the said raid was justified or not and whether the revisionist had sufficient material to make an assessment under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 or not and to take a demand of Rs. 6,39,000/-.  We are of the view that conducting such a raid and making assessment under Section 126 of the said Act, cannot be termed as deficiency in service.  The complainant can challenge the raid, the assessment and the demand raised on the basis of the assessment under the appropriate provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003.  We cannot decide whether a theft of electricity was being made or not and whether a provisional assessment was justified or not.”

12.     Learned counsel for the appellants has also placed reliance on a judgment in the case of Swastic Industries vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Board; 1997 AIR (SC) 1101.  In this case, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that supplementary demand raised by the Electricity Board for escaped energy charge, there was no deficiency in service in making supplementary demand for escaped billing. 

13.     We find force in the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants.  There is no evidence on record to show that old meter ever fall down while removing from the premises of the complainant-respondent by the employees of the appellants.  At the time of removal of old meter and installation of new electric meter at the premises of the respondent, one of the family members and representative of the respondent Sh. Sushil Kumar was present there, who had signed over the sealing certificate of newly installed electronic meter.  The readings of the old meter was also taken by the employees of the appellants in the presence of Sh. Sushil Kumar.  A copy of sealing certificate was also provided to Sh. Sushil Kumar.  On 25.01.2014, employees of the appellants checked the readings of old electricity meter, which were 7687 units.  The appellants sent electricity bill to the respondent for the period from 06.01.2014 to 06.03.2014 for a sum of Rs. 13,757/-, on the basis of readings of old electricity meter for the period from 06.01.2014 to 25.01.2014, which was for 3506 units and also on the basis of readings in new electronic meter for the period from 25.01.2014 to 06.03.2014 for 365 units.  On the basis of additional electricity bill, the respondent filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum.  In view of the recent decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and others vs. Anis Ahmad (supra), this consumer complaint challenging the electricity bill pertain to the unauthorized use and also assessment of the readings in the old meter, is not maintainable. 

14.     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.  As such, the appeal is fit to be allowed.

15.     For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is allowed.  The impugned judgment and order dated 28.07.2014 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar is set aside and the consumer complaint No. 157 of 2014 is dismissed.  No order as to costs.