BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

                                        Complaint Case No :  913 of 2009

                                        Date of Institution   :  01. 07.2009

                                        Date of Decision     :   21.12.2009

1]     Naresh Kumar son of Sh.Prem Nath, aged about 49 years, resident of House No.1070, Sector 21-B, Chandigarh.

2]     Dinesh Kumar son of Sh.Prem Nath, aged about 46 years, resident of House No.1070, Sector 21-B, Chandigarh, through his GPA holder i.e. Mr.Naresh Kumar.

3]     Deepika Marjara wife of sh.Naresh Kumar, aged about 46 years, resident of House No.1070, Sector 21-B, Chandigarh, through her GPA holder i.e. Naresh Kumar.

4]     Nivedika Marjara wife of Sh.Dinesh Kumar, aged about 43 years, resident of House No.1070, Sector 21-B, Chandigarh, through her GPA holder i.e. Naresh Kumar.

5]     Devki Devi wife of Sh.Prem Nathm, aged about 75 years, resident of House No.1070, Sector 21-B, Chandigarh, through her GPA holder i.e. Naresh Kumar.

….…Complainant

                                V E R S U S

1]     SDO Electricity, OP Sub Division No.10, Sector 40, Chandigarh.

2]     Subhiksha Trading Services Limited, through its Managing Director having its registered office at Cabin No.”A” Flat No.2, 2^nd Floor, Habib Complex No.5, Durgabai Deshmukh Road, R.A.Puram, Chennai-600028

                                        ..…Opposite Party

CORAM:    SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL      PRESIDENT

                SH.SIDDHESHWAR SHARMA         MEMBER

DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL              MEMBER

Argued by:         Sh.P.K.Kukreja, Adv. for complainant.

Ms.Ritu Jain, Govt. Pleader for OP No.1.

OP No.2 exparte.

PER SHRI JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT

                The complainants being owner of SCO No.215, Sector 40-B, Chandigarh entered into an agreement to lease its basement & ground floor with OP No.2 having area of 1666 sq. ft. and OP No.2 was to pay the electricity charges besides rental as per the electricity meter to be installed for the said rented premises.  As such complainants applied to OP No.1 for installation of one new electricity connection for basement and ground floor of said SCO and deposited Rs.13,629/-vide Ann.C-2 as security.  It is averred that since the entire electricity consumption was for the ground floor & basement in possession of OP No.2 only, so the entire charges were to be paid by OP No.2 to OP No.1 only.  On 5.2.2009 the OP No.2 vacated the ground floor & basement of said SCO and delivered its vacant possession to the complainants.  Soon after vacation of the said rented premises by OP No.2, the OP No.1 department, for the first time, vide letter dated 9.3.2009 (Ann.C-4) sent a bill dated 5.3.2009 (Ann.C-5) to the complainants for Rs.1,00,387/- claiming arrears of rental for the period from 2.5.2007 to 5.2.2009 and moreover, the electricity meter was removed on 5.3.2009 in the absence of complainants and without raising any bill.  It is also averred that in the same premises two more electricity meters were installed separately i.e. for the first floor and second floor.  The OP No.1 was presenting the electricity bills for the first & second floor but intentionally did not present the bills for the said account without any reason.  A request was also made to OP department in this respect but to no avail and instead a letter dated 6.4.2009 was issued to either deposit the amount failing which the other connections would also be disconnected.  It is further averred that OP No.1 joined hands with OP No.2 and intentionally not presented the electricity bills at regular interval i.e. monthly/bio-monthly basis.  The amount, if any, as alleged to be outstanding from 2.5.2007 to 5.2.2009 was payable by OP No.2 to OP No.1.  It is next averred that OP No.1 was guilty of its own act & conduct and has rendered deficiency in service to the complainants and due to all this, the complainants were unable to rent out the premises in question to other tenants from 5.3.2009 onwards and suffered huge monetary loss.  Therefore, the present complaint has been filed alleging the above act of OPs as gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice due to which the complainants have to suffer mentally, physically and financially.

2]             OP No.1 filed reply and submitted that as per record, the Electricity Connection bearing A/C No.4015/821502 was released in the name of Smt.Devki Devi and others for commercial purposes.  It is admitted that the complainants had applied for three electricity connection in SCO No.215, Sector 40-D, Chandigarh for commercial usage and the same were installed.  It is stated that after the release of electricity connections, the master file for preparing the electricity bill of the consumer were sent to RCC but due to same account numbers allotted to Sr.No.1 & 2 i.e. 4015/821500 (Ann.R-1), the master file of Sr.No.2 was rejected by the RCC vide Ann.R-2 and the concerned Ledger Clerk inadvertently did not resubmit the master file to the RCC after rectifying the account number due to which the bill could not be raised to the consumers of Account No.4015/821502.  It is also stated that the Meter Reader of the area reported to SDO on 5.3.2009 (Ann.R-3) that the bill of Meter No.CHEP-24514 was not being issued and accordingly the SDO deputed Sh.Sarwan Kumar, JE-II, who visited the site and removed the meter due to non-billing and since the premises were found locked, the ECR was informed vide letter Ann.R-4.  The issuing of the bill dated 5.3.2009 for Rs.1,00,387/- has been admitted.   It is also submitted that no electricity bill was raised to the consumer except bill dated 5.3.2009 and the same was issued on the basis of actual reading recorded on the meter and no complaint from consumer side was ever received that they had not received the electricity bill till the meter was removed.  Rest of the allegations have been denied and it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

3]             OP No.2 did not turn up despite having been duly served and therefore, it was proceeded against exparte. 

4]             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5]             We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

6]             The contention of the OP is that there were three electricity meters installed in the premises for various floors out of which the two meters had been given the same account number as 4015/821500.  It is mentioned in para 4 of the reply that when the master file for preparing the electricity bill was sent to RCC, it was rejected due to the reason that the same account number had been allotted to the second meter also.  It is also admitted by the OP-1 in this para that the ledger clerk inadvertently did not resubmit the master file to the RCC after rectifying the account number and due to this reason the bill could not be raised for the second meter.  It is very astonishing to note that for about 2 years (from 2.05.2007 to 5.03.2009) when the meter reader had been going to the premises to record the reading of the three meters and he had been seeing all the three meters installed at the same place but had been recording the reading of only two meters and not the third one.  There was therefore gross deficiency in service on the part of the OPs as they did not issue the electricity bill for the second meter for about 2 years.  However, as soon as the tenant i.e. OP-2 vacated the premises for which the said second meter was installed, the officials of the OP-1 became wiser and issued on 5.03.2009 a composite bill of Rs.1,00,387/-.  According to the complainant the OP-2 was tenant in this premises and in view of clause 16 of the agreement of lease annexure C-1 the electricity and water charges were to be paid by OP-2.  OP-1 therefore helped OP-2 in not paying any electricity for about 2 years because they did not send any such bill of the said premises in occupation of OP-2.  In view of the deficiency in service on the part of the OP-1 this controversy has been created and it appears that OP-1 has not have taken any action either against the clerk who inadvertently did not submit the master file to the RCC after rectifying the account number or against the meter reader who has not been reporting the meter reading for the consumption of electricity through the second meter. In any case we are of the opinion that the complainant is not liable to make the payment thereof. The OP-1 would be however free to recover the said amount from OP-2 in view of the agreement annexure C-1.

7]             Due to the deficiency in service on the part of OP-1, they have caused mental and physical harassment to the complainant and issued the bill for Rs.1,00,387/- and threatened vide Annexure C-9 to debit the dues in other connections if the amount was not paid. The OP-1 should therefore pay compensation to the complainant for causing him harassment.

8]             Since the electricity was consumed by OP-2 and in view of the agreement annexure C-1 they were to make the payment of the charges.  We are of the opinion that the bill amount should be paid by OP-2. OP-2 was duly served but they did not come forward to contest their liability which shows that they have nothing to say against their liability.

9]             In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint must succeed.  The same is accordingly allowed. OP-1 shall pay Rs. 25,000/- as compensation to the complainant for deficiency in service in not issuing the bills and now demanding the entire amount in lump sum thereby causing him mental and physical harassment. The amount shall be paid within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of this order. 

10]            The OP-2 is directed to pay the amount of Rs.1,00,387/-  to  OP-1 as the charges of the electricity within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which to pay the same alongwith interest @12% p.a from the date of filing of this complaint i.e. 01.07.2009, till payment.

11]            The OP-1 would be free to recover the amount of bill or compensation from its officials who were negligent in performing their duty, of course after adopting proper procedure as required under law.

                Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.