BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE

Dated this the 28^th of February 2011

PRESENT

        SMT. ASHA SHETTY           :   PRESIDENT

                        SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI       :   MEMBER

                        SRI. ARUN KUMAR K.        :   MEMBER

COMPLAINT NO.237/2010

(Admitted on 28.08.2010)

Mr.H. Rajendra Nayak,

So. H.Keshava Nayak,

Sharada School Lane,

Kodialbail,

Mangalore  575 003.                          …….. COMPLAINANT

(Advocate for the Complainant: Sri.K.N. Bhat).

          VERSUS

1. Station Officer,

MESCOM,

Mannagudda, Mangalore.

2. The Executive Engineer,

MESCOM,

Attavara, Mangalore.                 ……. OPPOSITE PARTIES

(Advocate for the Opposite Parties: Sri.K.Balaraj Rai).

                                      ***************

ORDER DELIVERED BY PRESIDENT SMT. ASHA SHETTY:

1.       This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties claiming certain reliefs. 

The brief facts of the case are as under:

The Complainant is having electric connection through meter No.RR MGL-121 provided by the Opposite Parties.  It is stated that, the Complainant consumes electricity power about 250 to 300 units per month but the bill issued by the Opposite Party for the month of February 2010 and March 2010 claimed that the Complainant consumed 451 and 861 units respectively and issued a bill for Rs.2,114/- and Rs.4,655/- respectively which is not correct.  Being aggrieved by the above, the Complainant had written letters to the Opposite Parties, Opposite Parties suggested to do meter testing by paying Rs.250/- and the meter was tested.  It is stated that, according to the information given by the Opposite Parties, the meter is no fault but the department changed the old meter and new meter was fixed.  According to the Complainant, he consumes only about 250 to 300 units of electricity and not more.  The bill issued by the Opposite Parties is not correct, under protest in order to avoid disconnection the Complainant paid the electricity bill amount to the Opposite Parties.  It is stated that, the act of the Opposite Parties amounts to deficiency and filed the above complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Forum to the Opposite Parties to quash the bill No.2010 06 17882 dated 19.06.2010 for Rs.4,477/- and to re-issue a bill for having consumed 214 units or in the alternative, the Opposite Parties may be directed to refund the excess amount of Rs.3,550/- with interest at 24% p.a. from the date of collection till repayment or to adjust the excess amount in future bills.

2.       Version notice served to the Opposite Parties by RPAD.       Opposite Parties appeared through their counsel filed version admitted the meter number and raised a contention stating that, this FORA has got no jurisdiction to try the above dispute.

 It is submitted that, the Complainant consumed 451 and 861 units of electricity and claimed Rs.2114/- and Rs.4,655/- respectively.  It is further stated that, the Complainant had written a letter for meter testing.  As per the request of the Complainant, the meter was sent to Assistant Executive Engineer, MESCOM, the meter was found to be correct and new high precision meter was connected to the Complainant’s residence since the old meter was sent for testing.  After examination, the meter was found to be in order and the said report has been sent to the Complainant by post and stated that the bill issued by the Opposite Parties in this case is correct and there is no deficiency and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

3.       In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:

1. Whether this FORA has got jurisdiction to try the above complaint?

2. Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Parties committed deficiency in service?

3. If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?

4. What order?

4.         In support of the complaint, Sri.H.Rajendra Nayak (CW1) filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and produced one document as listed in the annexure.   One Mr.Rajesh  (RW1), Section Officer of Opposite Party No.1 filed counter affidavit and answered the interrogatories served on him.  Both parties produced notes of arguments along with citations and Rules and Regulations.

          We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:

                       Point No.(i): Negative.

                       Point No.(ii) to (iv): As per the final order.  

Reasons

5.  Point No. (i) to (iv):

        In the instant case, the Complainant is having electricity connection through meter No.RR-MGL-121 provided by the Opposite Parties.  The allegation that, in the bills of February and March 2010 the Opposite Parties claimed Rs.2,114/- and Rs.4,655/- for the consumption of 451 and 861 units.  According to the Complainant, he consumes about 250 to 300 units of power and not more, it is stated that, the meter is yet fault and the bill issued by the Opposite Parties are not correct and sought for quash the bill issued by them. 

The Opposite Parties contended that, in the month of February and March 2010 Complainant has consumed 451 and 861 units of electricity and accordingly the Opposite Parties have issued the bill, as per the request of the Complainant, the meter was sent to Assistant Executive Engineer, MESCOM for testing.  After the test, the concerned Engineer reported that, the meter is in order and the report was sent to the Complainant by the Opposite Parties and stated that there is no deficiency and the bill is correct. 

However, the subject matter involved in this case is purely with regard to the electricity bill issued by the Opposite Parties.  The Rule 46.01 of K.E.B. Electricity Supply Regulations 1988 states that, “any consumer aggrieved by the claim made by the Board on account of faulty metering equipment or due to any supplemental claims, may file an appeal to the prescribed Appellate Authority within one month from the date of bill of such claim”.  In the instant case, the Complainant not preferred any appeal as against the bill issued by the Opposite Parties.  And further Section 145 of the Electricity Act of 2003 states that, “only the appellate authority or the adjudicating officer under the Act has got power to settle the dispute”. When that being the case, the Complainant should have approached the appellate authority to resolve the matter in controversy.

Further, in the light of the ruling reported in 2006 III CPJ 410, wherein it is held that, “the case involving billing dispute could not be entertained or tried by Consumer Court – Such disputes have to be referred to Chief Electrical Inspector for adjudication under mandatory provisions of Act of 1910”.  Further in another ruling reported in 2006(3) Karnataka L.J. Page 625, it has been clearly held that, “in view of the fact that Section 145 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 by implication would exclude jurisdiction of Civil Court or any other Forum on adjudicating the claim or action of the petitioners, cannot be sustained”. Even in the light of the above observation, the dispute is with regard to the electricity bills cannot be tried before this FORA.  The present dispute is purely with regard to the electricity bills, hence the Complainant shall approach the appellate authority to resolve the matter and not before this FORA because this FORA has no jurisdiction to entertain this type of complaint. 

In view of the above, the complaint is dismissed with a liberty to the Complainant to approach the concerned authority to resolve his controversy involved in this case.  No order as to costs.

6.       In the result, we pass the following:                                  

ORDER

            The complaint is dismissed with a liberty to the Complainant to approach the concerned authority to resolve his controversy involved in this case. No order as to costs.

The copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and therefore the file be consigned to record.

(Page No.1 to 7 dictated to the Stenographer typed by her, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 28^th day of February 2011.)

PRESIDENT                    MEMBER                              MEMBER

ANNEXURE

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:

CW1 – Sri.H.Rajendra Nayak – Complainant.

Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant:

Doc. No.1 – 22.03.2010: Letter addressed to the Executive Engineer, MESCOM complaining excess billing.

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

RW1 – Mr.Rajesh  (RW1), Section Officer of Opposite Party No.1.

Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

• Nil -

Dated:28.02.2011                            PRESIDENT