STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

(Appeal No.395 of 2010)

                                                          Date of Institution: 28.10.2010

                                                          Date of Decision  : 30.03.2011

Harminder Kaur d/o Sh. Nihal Singh r/o House No.235, Sector 35-A, Chandigarh

……Appellant

V e r s u s

S.D.O. Elcy/OPs Division No.7, Sector 35B, Chandigarh

              ....Respondent

BEFORE:      HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT.

                   MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

                   S.  JAGROOP  SINGH   MAHAL, MEMBER.

Argued by: None for the appellant.

                   Sh. Jatinder Singh, ADA on behalf of respondent.

PER  JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT

1.                 This appeal is directed against the order dated 6.10.2010, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as District Forum), vide which the complaint filed by the complainant (now appellant) was dismissed.

2.                 Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that, the complainant is a consumer of the Electricity Department against the electric connection bearing a/c No.307/3501/025500W. She had been paying the electricity bills regularly, without any default.  According to the complainant, the OP imposed a sum of Rs.250/- as penalty on account of dishonour of cheque, against the bill dated 16.1.2009 for the period from 19.10.2008 to 19.12.2008 instead of charging the bill amount and surcharge.  It was further stated that the OP again charged a sum of Rs.250/- as sundry charges against the bill dated 16.7.2009 for the period from 19.4.2009 to 19.6.2009 on account of dishonour of cheque.  It was further stated by her, that the OP, thus, illegally charged a sum of Rs.500/- from the complainant, which had not been adjusted, against future bills, despite her requests, in this regard.  When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only) was filed by the complainant, praying that the OP be directed to refund the amount of Rs.500/- alongwith interest as compensation for mental agony and harassment.

3.                 In the reply, the OP (now respondent) admitted that the premises in question was having 3 electricity connections.  It was also admitted that the complainant is a consumer of the Electricity Department.  The cheque dated 29.1.2009 for Rs.2,412/- was deposited by the complainant in respect of bill for the period 19.10.2008 to 19.12.2008.  This cheque  was dishonoured. Ultimately the disconnection order No.73/538 dated 10.6.2009 was issued and thereafter the complainant made the payment of Rs.2815/-, which included the electricity charges of Rs.2338/-, surcharge of Rs.227/- and RCO fee of Rs.250/-.  It was further stated that the surcharge and reconnection fee had been rightly charged as per the Rules.  It was further stated that since the amount deposited by the complainant in total was Rs.2815/-, and thus to show the bifurcation, amount of RCO fee was shown in the bill of the consumer issued on 16.7.2009 which was credited to her (complainant) in the next bill. It was further stated that the computer of the OP had picked up the surcharge for two bills for the period from 19.2.2009 to 19.4.2009 and from 19.4.2009 to 19.6.2009 amounting to Rs.234/- and Rs.254/-, totalling Rs.488/-.  It was further stated that this amount was adjusted in the subsequent bills dated 5.10.2009 and 5.12.2009 respectively of the consumer.  It was further stated that, under these circumstances, there was no deficiency, in service, on the part of the OP/respondent.

4.                 After hearing the Counsel for the parties and on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint, as stated above.

5.                 Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal was filed by the complainant/appellant.

6.                 On 29.3.2011, the appeal was fixed for arguments.  However, neither the complainant nor her Counsel, put in appearance, nor any written or oral intimation, was received, for her non appearance or the non appearance of her counsel.  Under these circumstances, this Commission was left with no alternative, than to decide the appeal on merits.

7.                 We have heard Shri Jatinder Singh, ADA, on behalf of the respondent, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case carefully.

8.                 There is, no dispute, about the factum, that the complainant/appellant is a consumer of the Electricity Department, relating to electricity connection bearing No.307/3501/025500W.  Cheque dated 29.1.2009 for Rs.2412/- in respect of the electricity charges, was issued by the complainant, which was dishonoured.  In the meanwhile, the disconnection order had been issued by the OP. The complainant/appellant deposited the bill amount on 18.6.2009 with surcharge.  It was under these circumstances that reconnection charges of Rs.250/- were charged from the complainant.  In the grounds of appeal, one of the grounds taken was that since neither temporary disconnection order was issued, nor the connection was disconnected by the OP hence the reconnection charges were illegally charged. The officials of the Electricity Department are required to act, in accordance with the instructions, issued by it, from time to time.   According to instructions  (Annexure R-5/A) dated 1.1.2001, D.C.Os should be issued to the consumers, whose cheques are dishonoured, on account of insufficient funds.  In the instant case disconnection order was issued.  Instructions were also placed on record by the OP, which were issued by the Chandigarh Administration, regarding the recovery of unpaid dues, from the defaulting consumers.  Clause 121.3.3 of the said instructions reads as follows :-

“RCO fees is required to be charged from all such defaulters, where the lists have been generated, by the computer after 21/30 days, as the case may be, whether connection is disconnected physically or not and the recovery is to be affected accordingly.”

The bare perusal of the above extracted clause, clearly goes to show that even if the electric connection had not been physically disconnected, but the list of defaulters has been generated, by the computer after 21/30 days of the amount, becoming due, reconnection charges are required to be charged by the Electricity Department.  It was acting under these instructions, that a sum of Rs.250/- (wrongly mentioned as Rs.500/- by the District Forum in its order) as reconnection fee was charged by the OP/respondent.  If the OP, acted in accordance with the instructions issued by the Electricity Department, it cannot be said that there was deficiency in rendering service on his part.  In our considered opinion, the District Forum was right in dismissing the complaint, holding that there was no deficiency in rendering service to the complainant on the part of the OP.  We are also of the considered opinion that the order of the District Forum does not suffer from any illegality, warranting the interference of this Commission

9.                           For the reasons recorded above, the appeal being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.2,000/-.

10.                       Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

Pronounced.

30^th March 2011.

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

Sd/-

[JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL]

MEMBER