Bakhshish Singh complainant through the present complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) has prayed that notice no.207 dated 20.3.2015 vide which opposite parties raised a demand of Rs.38,215/- be declared illegal, null and void and same may be quashed and opposite parties be also restrained from recovering the amount of Rs.38,215/- from the complainant. He has also claimed Rs.10,000/- as costs of complaint and Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation expenses.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he is a holder of the domestic electricity connection bearing account no.G-41JF-340309P which is installed in his house about 20 years back and he is paying its electricity bills regularly to the opposite parties and nothing is due against him and as such he is consumer of the opposite parties. It was pleaded that opposite parties issued illegal notice 207 dated 20.3.2015 to the complainant in which they demanded Rs.38,215/- as excessive use than the sanctioned load. In the above said notice it was stated that consumer/complainant was using one number Submersible motor for watering his newly constructed house and the excessive load than the sanctioned load but all these facts mentioned in the notice are absolutely wrong and denied. It was pleaded that complainant never used submersible motor for watering his newly constructed house by using the electricity connection no.G-41JF-340309P. It is pertinent to mention here that the house was constructed through contractor which was at some distance away form the house of the complainant and he has installed a Generator with Tractor Engine for running the submersible motor for watering the new construction of the house. It was further pleaded that no checking was ever made in the presence of the complainant or his family members and no one from the office of the opposite parties ever visited his house. It was also pleaded that notice dated 20.3.2015 vide memo no.207 vide which opposite parties raised a demand of Rs.38,215/- is illegal, null and void and liable to be set aside and opposite parties are not entitled to recover the above said amount from the complainant. It was next pleaded that complainant approached the opposite party no.2 and requested them to withdraw the notice dated 20.3.2015 but they refused to admit the same and threatened him that they will disconnect his electricity connection and to recover the illegal amount. It was stated that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as they have indulged in unfair trade practice, hence this complaint.
3. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared through their counsel and filed the written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable. Complainant did not follow the mandatory provision under section 126 of Indian Electricity Act, 2003. Complaint is false and frivolous and the complainant is liable for the special costs Rs.10,000/-. On merits, it was stated that opposite parties issued memo no.207 dated 20.3.2015 to the complainant vide which they have demanded Rs.31215/- for the use of excessive than the sanctioned load as he was running a submersible motor for watering his newly constructed house. It was further stated that the load of the complainant was checked by checking party on 4.3.2015 in his presence but he refused to sign on the checking memo. The concerned officials of the department tried to join the person who were present at the checking spot but being neighbourers they also refused sign on the checking memo. Accordingly opposite parties sent the above said notice as per the rules and regulations of the department. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied and lastly the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed with costs in the interest of justice.
- Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence.
- Sh.Subash Chander S.D.O. has tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP-1 alongwith other documents Ex.OP-2 and Ex.OP-3 and closed the evidence.
- We have duly considered the pleadings of both the parties; heard the arguments advanced by their counsels and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsels for the purpose of adjudication of the present complaint.
7. We have examined all the documents/evidence produced on record and have also duly considered and perused the arguments duly put forth by the learned counsels for both the litigants, while adjudicating the present complaint. The OP Corporation has wrongly claimed having issued the impugned Notice # 207 dated 20.03.2015 for Rs.38,215/- under section 126 of the Electricity Act’ 2003 and that the present complaint is not maintainable under Consumer Protection Act’ 1986; whereas the Notice has been a prompt of Checking # 5630/1207 of 04.03.2015 and on the face of it is not under section 126 of the Electricity Act 2003 thus shall be challengeable under the Act. Further, the OP Corporation has failed to produce an Affidavit of the checking staff deposing the authenticity of the contents of the said Notice and have also not rebutted the complainant’s claim that the new construction continues at a distance away from his House and there the contractor has his own arrangements for water. We further find that amount mentioned in the impugned notice is Rs.38,215/- whereas OP through their affidavit has claimed Rs.31,215/- only. The notice Ex.C2 is non speaking as it is silent as to what was the capacity of the motor alleged to have been caught running in the premises nor even the mode of calculation has been explained therin. And, this surely holds the OP service providers liable to an adverse award under the Act
8. In the light of the all above, we partly allow the present complaint and thus ORDER the titled opposite parties to withdraw the impugned Notice # 207 dated 20.03.2015 for Rs.38,215/- and refund the amount received (if any) against the same to the complainant within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders besides to pay him Rs.3,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigation otherwise the entire awarded amount shall attract interest @ 9% PA from the date of orders till actually paid.
9. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.
(Naveen Puri)
President.
ANNOUNCED: (Jagdeep Kaur)
SEPT. 23, 2015 Member.
*YP*
