Complainant Tota Masih, through the present complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to rectify the bills and to recover the actual consumption amount from him. Opposite parties be further directed to restore his electric connection and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- for mental agony, physical torture and financial loss caused by the opposite parties to him due to deficient service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties alongwith Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.
- The case of the complainant in brief is that an electric connection bearing Account No.G24BF 571129A has been installed in his name. He is using the electricity paying its bills etc. regularly, nothing was outstanding against him and as such he is consumer of the opposite parties. He is a poor labourer. He has a very small house. His sanctioned and existing load is 0.99 KW and status of meter of the complainant is also “O”. He has further pleaded that the opposite party has issued bill dated 19.10.2014 for Rs.44,660/- which is totally wrong, exaggerated, arbitrary, much more than the actual consumption made by him. On receipt of the illegal bill in question he approached the opposite party no.1 and requested them to rectify the bill and to receive the actual consumption charges, as he never used electricity to such an extent for which the bill is issued but of no avail. To his utter surprise the opposite party disconnected his domestic electricity connection about four months back. He had been approaching the opposite parties and requesting for the restoration of his electricity connection, but the opposite party no.1 and 2 always put the matter pending with one pretext or the other. The demand of the opposite parties without any checking and notice is illegal and subsequent disconnection of the electricity connection is against the rules, not binding upon him and liable to be withdraw because he neither came into arrears of amount due to the opposite parties, nor consumed electricity to such an extent for which the bills are issued and as such the demand in question is liable to be quashed. Thus there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.
3. Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties who appeared through their counsel and filed their written reply taking the preliminary objections that the complainant has filed the false and frivolous complaint; the complainant has not come to the Court with clean hands; the present complaint is not maintainable being theft case and the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present complaint. On merits, it was submitted that the electric connection of the complainant was checked by the employee of the opposite party on 9.9.2015 during checking it was found that the complainant was indulged in theft of electricity energy. The checking report was prepared at the spot but the complainant refused to sign on the checking report. One copy of the checking report was supplied to the complainant. After that the opposite party has sent the notice no.1114 dated 10.9.2015 to the complainant for recovery of Rs.52,644/- as theft charges. So the amount demanded by the opposite party is legal and genuine and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
4. Counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C1 along with other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C4 and closed the evidence.
5. Sh.Kuldip Singh S.D.O. P.S.P.C.L. tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP-1 alongwith other documents Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-5 and closed the evidence.
6. We have examined all the documents/evidence produced on record and have also duly considered and perused the arguments as put forth by the learned counsels for both the sides, while adjudicating the present complaint. We find that the present complaint has been mis-stated to appear as having filed to frustrate the recovery of the excessive consumption Bill dated 19.10.2014 for Rs.44,660/- whereas in fact the complainant has filed it to circumvent/ evade the penal action for having indulged in ‘theft’ of electricity and also the payment of the resultant Bill. Going by the complaint wording it mistakenly transpires that the complainant’s electricity was disconnected in the month of June’2015 (i.e., as stated therein ‘four months’ prior to filing of complaint in October’ 2015) whereas going by the present records the ‘disconnection’ was de’facto caused in September 2014. The OP Corporation have also confirmed (vide its written reply and affidavit Ex.OP1) that the electricity supply in question was disconnected in September’ 2014 but for having not paid the impugned Bill. The complainant has (on records) filed the present complaint (in October’ 2015) since the OP service providers threatened him (2 days back) to recover the unpaid amount through coercive methods although his electricity supply has already been disconnected 4 months back (i.e., in June’2015). The OP Corporation did rebut/ depose in the written reply/affidavit Ex.OP1 that the electricity-supply to the complainant was disconnected in September’ 2014 on account of non-payment of the impugned Bill.
7. We also find that during the continuation of the present complaint the OP Corporation did file the application dated 07.01.2016 for the dismissal of the present complaint since the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands. As discussed in the foregoing paragraph the complainant has knowingly mis-stated the date of disconnection of his electricity supply as sometime in June’2015 (3/4 months before the filing of the present complaint) whereas that was actually disconnected sometime in September’ 2014. Moreover, the disconnection continuing for more than six months attracts ‘termination’ clause 31.4 of the supply code 2014 and that terminates the very ‘consumer’ relationship under the Act and that in turn questions the very maintainability/continuity of the present complaint. We further find that the Forum Orders dated 27.10.2014 in consumer complaint # 208/2014 as produced by the learned counsel of the complainant shall not be of any help on account of ‘mis-statement’ as made out in the complaint coupled with other factors as discussed above. Under the circumstances, we allow the application under consideration and that autobiographically dismisses the present complaint that has already been bereft of all actionable merit under the adjudicatory act.
8. In the light of the all above, we find the present complaint as devoid of all merit under the CP Act’ 1986 and thus ORDER for its dismissal with however no order as to its costs.
9. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.
(Naveen Puri)
President.
ANNOUNCED: (Jagdeep Kaur)
January 29, 2016 Member.
*MK*
(
