ORDER

(Per: Mrs. Veena Sharma, Member):

            This is an appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the judgment and order dated 08.12.2010 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 91 of 2010.  By the order impugned the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the opposite party to issue an electricity bill according to the meter reading within a month from the date of order and to recover the amount after adjusting the amount deposited by the complainant accordingly.

2.       Briefly stated the facts of the case, as mentioned in, the consumer complaint are that an electricity connection No. 069370 of 2kw. was installed on 18.08.2006 in complainant’s house by the Electricity Department.  In February, 2009, the meter reading of the said meter was 1820 units, but the opposite party illegally sent a bill of Rs. 89,873/- to the complainant. The complaint was made against this bill by the complainant before the opposite party.  The opposite party made correction on the bill and instead of             Rs. 89,873/- a bill was made of Rs. 28,169/-, out of which the complainant has deposited a sum of Rs. 15,000/-, as part payment and rest amount was pending.  The complainant is an Astrologer and comes Haridwar after long intervals.  On 29.03.2009, when complainant came to Haridwar, he gave      Rs. 13,169/- as balance amount to Dinesh Kumar Rana, staff of the opposite party, but he did not deposit the said amount and refuse to return back the said amount. According to the correct bill, the balance amount was of Rs. 13,169/-, but the opposite party sent a bill of Rs. 54,804/- for the period of 10 months including the balance amount, which is fake and baseless. The complainant sent a notice on 22.12.2009 through his advocate to the opposite party that the opposite party to charge a balance amount of Rs. 13,169/- and also charge the electricity bill which was used from 2009 till now and give receipts and cancelled the bill of Rs. 54,804/-.  But the opposite party did not provide the correct bill to the complainant, as the complainant is a consumer of opposite party.  Due to this act of opposite party, the complainant suffered a physical and mental agony.  There is a great deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  Therefore, the complainant has filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar.

3.       The opposite party-Electricity Department has stated in its written statement that an electricity connection was running from 18.10.2000 in complainant’s premises. The complainant misused the said electricity connection during construction of his house.  But according to the documents, on 18.02.2006 a meter No. 133712 was installed in complainant’s residence with reading 327.  ADF bill was provided to the complainant due to defective meter.  On 19.02.2009 an application of the complainant for correction of bill was received by the answering opposite party.  No money has been deposited by the complainant before this application.  An amendment in the bill amount was made on old meter with a reading of 1823, which was verified by the Junior Engineer of the Electricity Department. The complainant was intimated that the meter is defective, so that a check meter will be installed in his premises in place of defective one.  An amended bill of Rs. 28,169/- was issued in favour of the complainant against which the complainant has deposited Rs. 15,000/- as part payment. Except this amount no other payment was made by the complainant. It is denied that the opposite party has not replied complainant’s legal notice. It is also denied that the balance amount of Rs. 13,169/- was given to Dinesh Kumar Rana.  A new bill was provided according to the check meter, which was installed in complainant’s house with his permission. The amount of new bill was more than complainant’s expectation, so that the dispute raised. The present bill was made after adjustment of Rs. 15,000/-, which was deposited by the complainant as part payment, and a bill of Rs. 43,554/- was sent to the complainant for the period till February, 2010.  The compensation demanded by the complainant is not acceptable and, therefore, the consumer complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed.

4.       The District Forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, has allowed the consumer complaint vide order dated 08.12.2010 in the above terms. Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party-Electricity Department has filed the present appeal.

5.       We have heard Sh. S.M. Jain, learned counsel for the appellants and   Sh. Sudhanshu Dwivedi, learned counsel for respondent and have also perused the material placed on record.

6.       Learned counsel for the appellants-opposite party has submitted that the District Forum has no jurisdiction to give directions to the appellants to prepare the bill according to the meter reading, as the bills are prepared as per Regulations framed by UERC as per provisions of Supply Code, 2007 and the relevant tariff in force. The Regulation No. 19(V) of the Regulations of 1984 and Regulation No. 3.3.3 of the Supply Code, 2007 lay down the complete machinery for correction of the bills.  Electricity is a technical matter.  If the complainant-respondent fails to correct the bills consequences are also provided therein.  The said direction of the District Forum is wholly illegal and uncalled for.  Since the respondent failed to comply with Regulation     No. 3.3.3, so the complaint is not legally maintainable.  The billing statement has been filed by the appellants before the District Forum, but the Forum below has failed to consider its true meaning and effect.  The respondent has not pointed out any error in any specific bill and the entire complaint is vague.  The billing statement filed before the District Forum shows that the entire readings recorded and the payments made by the respondent adjusted in his account. The present complaint related to billing dispute and for billing disputes an adequate statutory remedy has been provided under Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act and the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum has been established.  The District Forum has failed to appreciate that the meter was installed on 18.08.2006 at the reading of 327 became defective, as bill for ADF was coming.  The respondent did not get correct bills nor made any payment. The District Forum has failed to appreciate that the bill was correct at the reading of 1823.  Since the meter was showing ADF, so the check meter was installed so that the bills could be corrected according to the check meter reading. The bill of Rs. 28,169/- was only a provisional bill. The respondent paid Rs. 15,000/- as part payment and he did not deposit the balance amount. The issue of bills of ADF are not within the control of appellants and is not a deficiency in service.  The said bills are correct, as per Regulations framed by Uttarakhand Regulatory Commission, 2007. The District Forum has failed to understand the real controversy between the parties.

7.       Learned counsel for respondent has reiterated the facts of the case.

8.       The present case in hand is about disputed bills, which were sent to the respondent by the appellants of access amount. According to the respondent, the appellant did not issue bills to him according to the units consumed by him in his premises.  In his consumer complaint, the complainant-respondent has requested to issue electricity bills of accurate amount from the month February, 2010 till the date of filing the consumer complaint including past due amount Rs. 13,169/-.

9.       After perusal of the record, it is evident that the respondent has produced only one bill for the period from 08.06.2009 to 31.08.2009 for a sum of Rs. 54,804/-.  The respondent has not stated in his consumer complaint that the Electricity Department never sent the disputed bills to him.  In the appeal, the appellant has raised this question that the respondent has not pointed out any error in any specific bill.  The District Forum has no power and jurisdiction to entertain the said matter. If there is any grievance about the amount of electricity bills, the consumer can have it redressed before the Appellate Authority of Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum of the Electricity Department.

10.     The District Forum has not properly considered the facts and circumstances of the case and has erred in allowing the consumer complaint per impugned order, which cannot legally be sustained and is liable to be set aside.   

11.     In the above circumstances, the consumer complaint was not legally maintainable before the District Forum.  As a result the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 08.12.2010 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar is set aside and consumer complaint is liable to be dismissed.    

12.     For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is allowed.  The impugned order dated 08.12.2010 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar is set aside and consumer complaint No. 91 of 2010 is dismissed. No order as to costs.