PRESENT: Sh.Deepak Aggarwal, Adv. for the Complainant.

         Ms.Ritu Jain, Govt. Pleader for OPs.

PER ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI, MEMBER

        Concisely put, the OPs installed an electricity meter bearing A/c No. 310/3805/212100U in the residential premises of the Complainant and regular payments for the electricity bills have been made by him, as and when raised by the OPs. It was alleged that OPs charged him wrongly for commercial purpose instead of domestic purpose and as such, he was shown to be in huge arrears of rent for a period ranging from July 2000 till January, 2005.  He wrote a letter dated 05.08.2003 (Annexure C-2) to the OPs for the settlement of aforesaid dispute, pursuant to which vide Memo dated 25.5.2005, he was requested to attend the meeting of the Disputes Settlement Committee on 27.05.2005 at 3.00 PM, for the review of his case. Accordingly, he attended the said meeting, wherein certain corrections were carried out and in the revised bill, again, he was shown to be in arrears of Rs.92,729/- and a total amount of Rs.1,18,652/- was shown to be payable by him; whereas, it was admitted by the OPs that he had been wrongly charged on commercial basis instead of domestic basis. Copy of the revised bill is at Annexure C-3. His contention was that OPs were charging him wrongly for commercial tariff, instead of domestic tariff, which fact was apparent from Annexure C-5 written by him to the OPs for making corrections in the revised bill, when the Departmental Review Committee of the OPs waived off a total sum of Rs.41,040/- charged wrongly earlier on account of commercial tariff. It was alleged that OPs raised only a single bill for both the disputed (past) and current bill amounts, instead of issuing separate bills for disputed amount/ surcharge. He even made repeated requests to the OPs to issue him separate bills for the current consumption of electricity and for past consumption, but they put deaf ears to the same. Since OPs instead of making correction in the revised bill, threatened to disconnect the electricity connection, a Consumer Complaint was filed against the OPs in March, 2006, wherein notice was issued to the OPs. As the matter was amicably settled in regard to the disputed amount and on the condition of the OPs that if the Complainant withdrew the Consumer Complaint, they would not charge any amount as penalty/ surcharge from him, accordingly, the Consumer Complaint was withdrawn on 15.5.2006. But to his utter dismay, again after a gap of more than 2 years, a notice u/s 56 of Indian Electricity Act, 2003, was sent by the OPs, requiring the Complainant to deposit the outstanding defaulting amount of Rs.61,241/- + Rs.17,816/- (current bill) + Rs.1730/- (surcharge), within 15 days, failing which it was threatened that his power supply would be disconnected (Annexure C-6/A), which according to the Complainant amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. In the end, the Complainant has prayed for the following reliefs:-

a)  the present complaint be allowed. 

b)  OPs be directed to withdraw the notice u/s 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which is bad in law, invalid and illegal, in view of the facts that already a compromise had been effected before this Hon’ble Forum on 15.5.2006, when the Complainant was persisted by the OPs to withdraw the earlier complaint filed before this Hon’ble Forum and further that in lieu of the same, penalty/ surcharge wrongly imposed earlier on the Complainant, will be waived;

c)  Notice u/s 56 of Electricity Act, 2003 is nothing but abuse of process of law as the Complainant had already deposited all the current bills as claimed by the OPs and also the disputed bills as per the compromise dated 15.5.2005;

d)  It is further prayed that a sum of Rs.1.00 lac be awarded in favour of the Complainant and against the OPs on account of mental tension and agony.

e)  It is further prayed that a sum of Rs.21,000/- be awarded towards the cost of litigation. And any other sum which this Hon’ble Forum deems fit in the given circumstances of the case in favour of the Complainant.

f)  Till the case is decided, OPs be directed not to disconnect the electricity supply at the premises of the Complainant, in the interest of justice.

2]      Notice of the complaint was sent to OPs seeking their version of the case. 

3]      OPs No. 1 & 2, in their joint written statement, while admitting the factual matrix of the case/reply, pleaded that the electricity connection in the name of Complainant bearing A/c No. 3805/ 212100U exists in the record and that he was making the payment of the bills, but not the surcharge of the current bills for not paying the bills within due date, was outstanding against him which was payable as per instruction No. 151(5) of Sales Manual (Annexure R-1). It was submitted that in case the amount of electricity bill was more than Rs.10,000/-, the payment of energy charges were to be accepted only through pay order/ demand draft/ cheque as per Para No. 8 of the directions relating to the payment of bill (Annexure R-II). The due date for depositing the bill was different for cash and cheques. In the instant case, the due date for depositing the bill in cash was 18.6.2008 and by PO/DD/Cheque was 15.06.2008. The bill being above Rs.10,000/- was to be deposited by Pay Order/Demand draft. The bill was deposited on 18.06.2008 i.e. after the expiry of the due date of 15.6.2008. So, the surcharge was to be levied. It was asserted that the Complainant was called for attending the Dispute Settlement Committee meeting held on 27.5.2005 at 3.00 PM and the matter regarding charging of commercial tariff instead of domestic was settled by the Dispute Settlement Committee on 24.6.2005 (Annexure R-III) and the necessary adjustment/ refund of Rs.41,040/- was made on 16.8.2005.It was also admitted that the revised bill of Rs.1,18,652/- was given to the Complainant after necessary refund/ adjustments and credits as per decision of Dispute Settlement Committee dated 24.6.2005. It was submitted that as per record, the Complainant had not made the payment of the current bills within due date and was availing the undue benefits by disputing the matter. Only due to this reason the large amount was lying outstanding after adjustments of Rs.41,040/- as per decision by the Dispute Settlement Committee against him. The consumer had submitted an affidavit denying any commercial activities in the premises. As such, the dispute regarding charging on commercial basis was settled. However, consumer was to be charged compensation amount as per remarks on MCO effected on 9.1.2001 regarding M&T seals tempered as the M&T seals were found to have been tempered. The DSC decided that surcharge was to be levied regarding the amount of current bill not paid in time and if the current bill was paid in time, no surcharge was to be levied. The Complainant paid some amount of current bills in time and some current bills were not paid in time. As such, surcharge was levied for the amount of current bill not paid in time and no surcharge has been levied for the amount of current bill paid in time. Detail of the bills showing surcharge levied and not levied is at Annexure R-IV. The Complainant requested to put up the case of surcharge amount to the Appellate Committee and his case was sent vide SDO Elect. OP S/D No. 10, Sector 40, Chandigarh Memo No. 1975, dated 24.7.2007 (Annexure R-V) for putting up the same in the Appellate Committee meeting. The appellate Committee meeting was held on 16.6.2008 (Annexure R-VI) which decided that the consumer has not deposited his current bills timely and hence, the surcharge cannot be refunded and the same was payable as per earlier decision of Circle Office, Dispute Settlement Committee decision dated 24.6.2005. It was further pleaded that there was no provision to issue separate bills for the disputed amount and current bills. The Complainant, as and when contacted the OPs for depositing his current bill, he was allowed to do so and the surcharge of the current bill paid by him within due date, has not been charged from him. Earlier, a complaint was filed by the Complainant in the Hon’ble Consumer Forum, wherein reply was also filed by the OPs. The said complaint was withdrawn by the Complainant at his own will and he desired to pay the outstanding amount in installments. His application regarding withdrawal is at Annexure R-VII. It was further admitted that notice was issued to the Complainant to deposit the defaulting amount of Rs.61,241/- + Rs.17,816/- current bill and surcharge of Rs.1730/- as applicable. All other material contentions of the Complainant were controverted. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs.

4]      Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5]      We have carefully gone through the entire case thoroughly, including the complaint and the relevant documents tendered by the complainant / OPs. We also heard the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the Complainant and learned GP for OP No. 1 & 2. As a result of the detailed analysis of the entire case, the following points/issues have clearly emerged and certain conclusions/arrived at, accordingly:-

i]  The basic facts of the case in respect of the Complainant having an electricity meter bearing Account No. 310/3805/212100U in his residential premises and that he has been making payments for the various electricity bills from time to time, have all been admitted. It is also a fact that the OPs in the beginning charged the Complainant wrongly for commercial purpose instead of domestic purpose and consequently, after due inquiry, when it was established that the Complainant was actually using the electricity connection for domestic purpose only, the electricity bill was revised by the OPs in May, 2005 and a total amount of Rs.1,18,652/- was shown to be payable by the Complainant, which contained Rs.92,729/- as payment of arrears and the rest was the current bill, including surcharge. Subsequently, the OPs wrote to the Complainant on 27.06.2008 i.e. after about 03 years, asking him to deposit a sum of Rs.61,241/- (as Arrears) + Rs.17,816/- (as the Current Bill) and Rs.1730/- (as Surcharge), as applicable within 15 days of the notice, failing which the electricity supply would be disconnected without any further notice u/s 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003. It was also clarified by the OPs that as per the Minutes of the Appellate Committee Meeting, held on 16.06.2008, subsequent to the meeting of the Disputes Settlement Committee, for the Electricity A/c No. 3805/212100U, the surcharge cannot be refunded and the same is payable as per the decision of the Disputes Settlement Committee (D.S.C), dated 24.6.2005, as the Complainant had not deposited the current bills, well in time.

ii] The main dispute between the parties has been that whereas the Complainant claims that as per the circular issued by the OPs on 8.8.1995, in case the electricity bill is challenged by the Consumer or there is some dispute in respect of arrear bills, the bills for arrear amount have to be separately issued from the current bills, which in the present case, has not been done by the OPs, as a result of which, the Complainant was not in a position to deposit even the current bills, well within time, as he had already disputed the amounts shown as outstanding on account of arrears. The relevant Rule 2 of the instructions issued by the OPs themselves is quoted below: -

“2. The following are the actions to be taken in case bill is challenged by the Consumer/ issue of arrear bill.

i) The bills for arrear amount arising out of under assessment detected by audit or by the field staff should be separately issued except for the charges relating to the arrears concerning general charges as given in Schedule 1 of the tariff which can be charged through the current bills.”

iii] The Complainant further says that he has been depositing the amount of the current bills, as and when demanded by the OPs and as approved by the concerned SDO of the Electricity Department, as per the amounts written by him in hand on the bills. It is only the disputed amount of bills, which could not be paid by the Complainant in time, as these were never separated by the OPs from the current bills and, therefore, no surcharge was payable on such bills, as the lapse was on the part of OPs and not the Complainant. The Complainant has also referred to Annexure R-4, which had been enclosed by the OPs themselves, in support of their case. Page-III of Annexure R-4 contains the abstract of Electricity Meter Account No. 3805/212100U of the Complainant,  which is reproduced below:-

The above abstract shows that the total bill raised from 12.7.2000 to 12.5.2007 i.e. for a period of about 7 years comes to Rs.6,19,869/-; whereas, the Consumer has already paid a total sum of Rs.6,34,273/-, which means the Consumer has paid more than the total bill raised by the OPs. The only problem raised by the OPs has been the quantum of surcharge, which has been shown as Rs.57,134/-. To this amount, the OPs have also added sundry charges of Rs.85,766/- whatever that means and completely undefined sundry allowances amounting to Rs.68,673/-. Therefore, by their own admission, the Complainant has made all the payments in full, except the surcharge/sundry charges/ sundry allowances, which are under dispute. The OPs have also enclosed the detailed statement of account of the Complainant as Annexure R-IV, in which the details of surcharge and sundry charges are given and as per the statement, the total surcharge due as on 12.5.2007 comes to Rs.58,853/- and sundry charges at Rs.17,090/-. It does not give any break-up as to how these figures have been arrived at. Moreover, when the electricity bills for the current consumption have not been separated from the ones in dispute, the question of charging surcharge or sundry charges or sundry allowances on the total bill is clearly an unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The OPs have admittedly stated that the Complainant has not paid the bills within the stipulated dates, but no details are available on record as to the exact dates on which the electricity bills were payable and the dates on which these were actually paid. In the absence of these details, it will be merely a guess and very wild guess to state that Rs.58,853/- and Rs.17,090/- were payable as surcharge or sundry charges. The OPs themselves have committed serious lapses atleast on two occasions i.e. the one when they started charging the commercial rates for electricity consumption instead of domestic rates from the Complainant and ultimately, they had to rectify their mistake after due inquiry and issued the revised bills on domestic rates. On the second occasion, when there was a clear cut dispute in respect of the bills for old arrears payable by the Complainant, they had not separated the bills of arrears from the current bills, which they were required to do under their own rules. It is only because of this reason that the Complainant was not in a position to pay even the current bills, in full, as he was paying only those amounts, which were marked on the electricity bills in hand by the concerned SDO, which clearly constituted only part payment of bills, but which were duly approved by the SDO of the OPs.

iv] Another contention of the OPs is that the Consumer was charged compensation amount as per remarks on MCO effect on 9.1.2001, regarding M&T Seals tempered, as the M&T Seals were found to have been tempered. Our attention has been invited to a Circular dated 25.8.2000, issued by the Superintending Engineer, Electricity OP Circle, U.T. Chandigarh (C-8), in respect of the sundry charges. The relevant extract of the circular is quoted below: -

“It has been observed that the notices to various consumers for unauthorized load checkings, theft and levying of penalties/ surcharges are not properly awarded which lead to the legal disputes at a later stage. It is as such desired that the notices should clearly mention that the less consumption is due to wrong connections, tempering of seals, slow running of meters due to faulty CTs or any other reasons. The notices should also clearly mention the details of Penalty/ Surcharges levied on account of these irregularities.”   

v]  In the present case, the OPs have not made any separate mention about the levying of penalty/ surcharge on account of tempering of the M&T Seals or late payment of bills and the respective break-up of the same. In fact, no notice has been issued to the Complainant in respect of the allegation that the M&T Seals were tempered and that he is being penalized on that account and to what proportion of the total penalty.

6]      As per the above detailed analysis of the case, it is quite clear that the Complainant was only liable to pay the current bills and surcharge, if any, if the payment of the current bill was delayed beyond the stipulated date. He was not liable to pay any surcharge or sundry charges or sundry allowances on the amount of arrears not paid by him on account of non-separation of bills i.e. the arrear bills from the current bills. Therefore, there is definitely grave deficiency in service, as well as indulgence in unfair trade practice on the pat of the OPs. The present complaint has a lot of merit in favour of the Complainant and against the OPs. The OPs have not only been deficient in service towards the Complainant, but have also indulged in an unfair trade practice by not following even their own rules, procedures and circulars issued from time to time by the higher authorities of the OP. Keeping in view the above, we find that there is a lot of merit, substance and weight in the present complaint and we, therefore, decide the complaint in favour of the Complainant and against the OPs. We direct the OPs to do the following:-

i] The OPs are directed to withdraw the notice u/s 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003, issued by them to the Complainant and also waive the entire amount shown as outstanding towards the Complainant to the extent of Rs.61,241/- and henceforth accept all the current electricity bills without charging any penalty/ surcharge/ sundry charges/ sundry allowances, if the bills are paid within the due dates.

ii] The OPs shall pay a compensation of Rs.20,000/- for causing physical harassment, mental agony and pain to the Complainant by not issuing him the proper electricity bills during the last 09 years or so, and also demanding the penalties/ surcharge/ sundry charges/ sundry allowances in a wrongful manner.

iii] The OPs shall pay litigation costs of Rs.5,000/- to the Complainant.

7]      The aforesaid order be complied with by the OPs within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, failing which, they shall pay the sum of Rs.20,000/- along with interest @18% per annum from the date of filing of present complaint i.e. 11.07.2008, till the date of realization, besides paying the cost of litigation at Rs.5,000/- and fully complying with the order as at (i) in the foregoings.

8]     Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file