Order by:
Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President
1. The complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) on the allegations that an electric connection bearing Serial No.1136044 (Account No. 3002917567) standing in the name of Sh.Thaman Singh in the shop bearing Municipal Unit No. 599 and now the complainant got changed the aforesaid electric connection in his name with new account No. 3003350575 and hence the complainant is consumer of the Opposite Parties. Further alleges that the complainant received a bill dated 03.03.2018 showing an amount of Rs.74,995/- on account of sundry charges without issuing him any notice as required by regulation No. 30.1.2 of Supply Code 2014. On enquiry, the officials of the Opposite Parties told that the said amount of sundry charges of Rs.74,995/- was imposed on account of earlier electric connection bearing Serial No.1136044 (Account No. 3002917567) being defective and the account was overhauled as per regulation No. 21.5.2. However, the complainant deposited the impugned amount with the Opposite Parties under protest vide receipt No. 15.03.2018. Further averred that the complainant is the owner of the aforesaid shop and let out the same to Relaxo Footwears Limited vide lease deed dated 10.08.2009 and the lessee vacated this shop on 31.12.2015 when the reading of the aforesaid electric meter was at 45098. This shop remained closed till 21.11.2016. On 09.08.2016 the aforesaid meter being allegedly defective was changed with a new meter bearing serial No.1256294. However, from the report dated 09.08.2016 and the report of experts of ME Lab on challan dated 30.11.2016 Sh.Balwinder Singh AJE vide which the removed meter was returned to ME Lab it is clear that the removed meter was not, in fact, mechanically defective. From the challan of the ME Lab dated 30.11.2016, it is also clear that this removed meter was returned to ME Lab at reading 45098. From the aforesaid resume, it is crystal clear that the aforesaid account of the complainant has been wrongly overhauled and the sundry charges of Rs.74,995/- have been illegally imposed and recovered from him. The only defect in the removed meter pertains to its display unit. In other words, through display unit, the reading of the electric meter was not visible and this defect is not sufficient enough to warrant the overhauling of the account of the complainant and to impose on him the impugned amount. The bills issued from cycle 9 of 2015 to cycle 3 of 2016 (12/15 to 6/16) respectively also show the status of meter as ‘O’ (OK). Further alleges that the aforesaid unwarranted overhauling of the account of the account for the period 12/15 to 8/16 (cycle 9 of 2015 to cycle 5 of 2016) is illegal and presumptive based on surmises and conjectures. The reason for non consumption of electricity during this period is that aforesaid shop was lying closed and out of use after its vacation on 31.12.2015 by Relaxo Footwear Limited. The complainant paid the minimum consumption charges during this period. Further alleges that no mechanical defect, whatsoever was found either by the JE concerned or a team of experts in the ME Lab. The only defect that was found in this electric meter was that through its display unit reading of this meter was not visible. Even this defect in the display unit was not attributed to any negligence of the consumer. Such a trivial defect in the display unit of the electric meter did not warrant overhauling the account of the complainant as per the regulation and due to the aforesaid act and conduct and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has suffered mental tension, harassment and financial loss. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.
- To pay/ refund the amount of Rs.74,995/- to the complainant alongwith upto date interest.
- Further opposite parties may also be directed to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant on account of compensation for causing mental tension and harassment and costs of complaint.
- And any other relief may kindly be granted as this Commission may deem fit and proper.
Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply taking certain preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint is not maintainable; that this District Consumer Commission has got no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. The complainant has concealed the material facts from this District Consumer Commission. Actual facts are that electric connection in dispute in the name of Thaman Singh. As per the report of the meter reader, the meter was defective in the month of July, 2016 and the same was changed on 09.08.2016 in the presence of the complainant. The meter was not working as per the consumer data for the period 12/2015 to 07/2016 and hence, the audit party vide half margin No. 62 dated 11/2016 the account of the consumer was overhauled for the period 5/2015 to 07/2016 amounting to Rs.74,995/- as per the consumption of the previous year for the month of 12/2014 to 05/2015. Consequently, the notice for demanding a sum of Rs.74,995/- on account of overhauling the account of the complainant as per the rules and regulation of the corporation, to which the complainant is liable to pay the disputed amount both in law and equity. On merits, the Opposite Parties took up the same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. All other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with special costs has been made.
3. In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 in support of the allegations made in the complaint and copies of the documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C25and closed his evidence.
4. On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties has tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Sandeep Singh SDO Ex.OPs1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.OPs2 and Ex.OPs17 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Parties.
5. We have heard the complainant and ld. counsel for the Opposite Parties and also gone through the evidence on record.
6. From the appraisal of the evidence on record, it becomes evident that an electric connection bearing Serial No.1136044 (Account No. 3002917567) standing in the name of Sh.Thaman Singh in the shop bearing Municipal Unit No. 599 and now the complainant got changed the aforesaid electric connection in his name with new account No. 3003350575 and hence the complainant is consumer of the Opposite Parties. The case of the complainant is that the complainant received a bill dated 03.03.2018 showing an amount of Rs.74,995/- on account of sundry charges without issuing him any notice as required by regulation No. 30.1.2 of Supply Code 2014. On enquiry, the officials of the Opposite Parties told that the said amount of sundry charges of Rs.74,995/- was imposed on account of earlier electric connection bearing Serial No.1136044 (Account No. 3002917567) being defective and the account was overhauled as per regulation No. 21.5.2. However, the complainant deposited the impugned amount with the Opposite Parties under protest vide receipt No. 15.03.2018. Further averred that the complainant is the owner of the aforesaid shop and let out the same to Relaxo Footwears Limited vide lease deed dated 10.08.2009 and the lessee vacated this shop on 31.12.2015 when the reading of the aforesaid electric meter was at 45098. This shop remained closed till 21.11.2016. On 09.08.2016 the aforesaid meter being allegedly defective was changed with a new meter bearing serial No.1256294. However, from the report dated 09.08.2016 and the report of experts of ME Lab on challan dated 30.11.2016 Sh.Balwinder Singh AJE vide which the removed meter was returned to ME Lab it is clear that the removed meter was not, in fact, mechanically defective. From the challan of the ME Lab dated 30.11.2016, it is also clear that this removed meter was returned to ME Lab at reading 45098. From the aforesaid resume, it is crystal clear that the aforesaid account of the complainant has been wrongly overhauled and the sundry charges of Rs.74,995/- have been illegally imposed and recovered from him. The only defect in the removed meter pertains to its display unit. In other words, through display unit, the reading of the electric meter was not visible and this defect is not sufficient enough to warrant the overhauling of the account of the complainant and to impose on him the impugned amount. The bills issued from cycle 9 of 2015 to cycle 3 of 2016 (12/15 to 6/16) respectively also show the status of meter as ‘O’ (OK). Further alleges that the aforesaid unwarranted overhauling of the account of the account for the period 12/15 to 8/16 (cycle 9 of 2015 to cycle 5 of 2016) is illegal and presumptive based on surmises and conjectures. The reason for non consumption of electricity during this period is that aforesaid shop was lying closed and out of use after its vacation on 31.12.2015 by Relaxo Footwear Limited. Further contended that the complainant paid the minimum consumption charges during this period. Further alleges that no mechanical defect, whatsoever was found either by the JE concerned or a team of experts in the ME Lab. The only defect that was found in this electric meter was that through its display unit reading of this meter was not visible. Even this defect in the display unit was not attributed to any negligence of the consumer. Such a trivial defect in the display unit of the electric meter did not warrant overhauling the account of the complainant as per the regulation and due to the aforesaid act and conduct and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
7. On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties has repelled the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel the complainant and contended that in fact the electric connection in dispute in the name of Thaman Singh. As per the report of the meter reader, the meter was defective in the month of July, 2016 and the same was changed on 09.08.2016 in the presence of the complainant. The meter was not working as per the consumer data for the period 12/2015 to 07/2016 and hence, the audit party vide half margin No. 62 dated 11/2016 the account of the consumer was overhauled for the period 5/2015 to 07/2016 amounting to rs.74,995/- as per the consumption of the previous year for the month of 12/2014 to 05/2015. Consequently, the notice for demanding a sum of ofRs.74,995/- on account of overhauling the account of the complainant as per the rules and regulation of the corporation, to which the complainant is liable to pay the disputed amount both in law and equity. But however, we are not convinced with the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties.
8. Undisputedly, the an electric connection bearing Serial No.1136044 (Account No. 3002917567) standing in the name of Sh.Thaman Singh in the shop bearing Municipal Unit No. 599 and now the complainant got changed the aforesaid electric connection in his name with new account No. 3003350575 and hence the complainant is consumer of the Opposite Parties.
9. It is not the denial of the parries that the complainant is the owner of the aforesaid shop where the disputed connection is installed and let out the same to Relaxo Footwears Limited vide lease deed dated 10.08.2009 and the lessee vacated this shop on 31.12.2015 when the reading of the aforesaid electric meter was at 45098. This shop remained closed till 21.11.2016. On 09.08.2016 the aforesaid meter being allegedly defective was changed with a new meter bearing serial No.1256294. However, from the report dated 09.08.2016 and the report of experts of ME Lab on challan dated 30.11.2016 Sh.Balwinder Singh AJE it is proved that removed meter was returned to ME Lab which further corroborated that the removed meter was not, in fact, mechanically defective. Not only this, from the challan of the ME Lab dated 30.11.2016, it is also clear that this removed meter was returned to ME Lab at reading 45098. From the aforesaid admissions of the officials of the Opposite Parties, it is crystal clear that the aforesaid account of the complainant has been wrongly overhauled and the sundry charges of Rs.74,995/- have been illegally imposed and recovered from him. The only defect in the removed meter pertains to its display unit. In other words, through display unit, the reading of the electric meter was not visible and this defect is not sufficient enough to warrant the overhauling of the account of the complainant and to impose on him the impugned amount. The bills issued from cycle 9 of 2015 to cycle 3 of 2016 (12/15 to 6/16) respectively also show the status of meter as ‘O’ (OK). Hence, the aforesaid unwarranted overhauling of the account of the account for the period 12/15 to 8/16 (cycle 9 of 2015 to cycle 5 of 2016) is illegal and presumptive based on surmises and conjectures. The reason for non consumption of electricity during this period is that aforesaid shop was lying closed and out of use after its vacation on 31.12.2015 by Relaxo Footwear Limited. It is also not denied by the Opposite Parties that the complainant paid the minimum consumption charges during this period. Since there was no mechanical defect in the replaced meter, whatsoever was found either by the JE concerned or a team of experts in the ME Lab. The only defect that was found in this electric meter was that through its display unit reading of this meter was not visible. Even this defect in the display unit was not attributed to any negligence of the consumer. Hence, there is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties because such a trivial defect in the display unit of the electric meter did not warrant overhauling the account of the complainant as per the regulation. To strengthen his case, the complainant has produced on record his duly sworn affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith copies of bills Ex.C2 to Ex.C4, copy of resolution Ex.C5, Ex.C6, copy of deposit receipt dated 15.03.2018 Ex.C7, copy of letter dated 15.03.2018 vide which the disputed amount was deposited under protest Ex.C8, copy of lease deed Ex.C9, copy of vacation intimationEx.C10, copy of lease agreement Ex.C11, copy of demand notice Ex.C12, copy of store challan Ex.C13, copy of half marginEx.C14, copies of bills Ex.C15 to Ex.C21, copy of legal notice Ex.C22, copies of postal receipts Ex.C23 to Ex.C25. On the other hand, the Opposite Parties have failed to rebut these evidence by any cogent and convincing evidence.
10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the demand of Rs. 74,995/- (Rupees seventy four thousands nine hundred ninety five only) raised by the Opposite Parties on account of sundry charges from the complainant vide bill dated 03.03.2018 Ex.C4, is set aside and quashed. Since the impugned amount of Rs.74,995/- has already been deposited by the complainant with the Opposite Parties under protest vide receipt dated 15.03.2018 (Ex.C7), hence, we direct the Opposite Parties to refund the said amount alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of its deposits till its realization. However, the Complainant shall continue to pay the consumption charges regularly without any default in future as per actual consumption. Opposite Parties are also directed to pay lump sum compensation to the complainant which we assessed at Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousands only). The compliance of this order be made by the Opposite Parties within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
11. Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.
This complaint could not be decided within the prescribed period because the government has not appointed any of the Whole Time Members in this Commission for about 3 years i.e. w.e.f. 15.09.2018 till 27.08.2021 as well as the situation arising due to outbreak of the Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19).
Announced in Open Commission.
