PER MR PREM NARAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER

RP no. 36 OF 2008

        This revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 24.08.2007 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U T Chandigarh (‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal no. 359 of 2001.

2.     The brief facts leading to this revision petition are that the complainant had received a bill dated 23.03.2000 for a sum of Rs.4,70,406/- which was not as per actual consumption of electric energy by the complainant. The complainant had been paying the electricity bill regularly till November 1999 but thereafter, due to financial constraints, it deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/- only on 30.03.2000. However, in the month of January 2000, the complainant had moved an application for temporary disconnection of electric supply but the same was not done in spite of several requests. Further, the complainant received a bill dated 21.06.2000 demanding a sum of Rs.4,92,372/- which again was not as per actual consumption and was illegal and arbitrary. There being deficiency on the part of OPs in sending illegal and arbitrary bills since December 1999 till 24.06.2000. The complainant filed a Consumer Complaint no. 458 of 2000 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri (‘the District Forum’). This complaint was filed praying for directions to the OPs to strike off the illegal amount of Rs.4,92,372/- pertaining to account no. B 7-1 and restore electric connection of the complainant.

3.     The version of the OPs is that the complainant has not paid the electricity bills and the complainant had in fact to pay sum of Rs.5,18,344/- till the end of July 2000. Hence, the complainant was not within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Forum. It has further been stated by the OPs that the TDCO was affected on 14.03.2000, however, on account of arrears/ non-payment of electricity charges the complainant cannot get the benefit of temporary disconnection because he was under arrears in the month of March 2000 when the connection was disconnected. It was further stated that the complainant was liable to pay one time Advance Consumption Deposit (ACD) including dismantle, connection order changes, line erection charges along with upto date surcharge. It has also been stated by the OPs that the electricity connection was restored in compliance of the order of the District Forum dated 18.09.2000. Emphasizing that the bill dated 21.06.2000 was genuine and legal, it was asserted by the OPs that the complainant was bound to pay this bill.

4.     The District Forum vide its order dated 12.02.2001 has allowed the complaint as under:

“We therefore, quash the amount of Rs.34,945/- shown as sundry charges in the bill for the month of March 2000 and the amount shown under the head MMC (Monthly Minimum Charges) from the bill March 2000 till the bill June 2000. The respondents also cannot charge the ACD, i.e., Advanced Consumption Deposit because the connection was illegally disconnected by the respondents. Rather the respondents have harassed the complainant by illegally disconnecting the connection of the complainant and he has suffered in his business as well as mental torture. The account of the complainant be corrected. This order be complied within one month from the date of this order.”

5.     Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the opposite party / sub divisional officer, Yamuna Nagar preferred an appeal before the State Commission being in Appeal no. 359 of 2001. The State Commission vide its order dated 24.08.2007 observed as under:

“In view of the foregoing discussion, we find no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed as it lacks substance. However, the impugned order needs correction to the extent that the MMC charged in the bills for May and June only needs to be quashed as the OPs are entitled to charge MMC for one month after TDCO. Consequently, the impugned order is upheld subject to the modification that MMC only in the bills of May 2000 and June 2000 is quashed.”

6.     Hence, the present revision petition.

7.     Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8.     Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the complainant is a rice mill and is not covered under the definition of consumer as per the provision of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. However, both the fora below have not considered this vital point for deciding the complaint. Electricity connection was obtained for commercial purpose as rice mill is a commercial venture for earning profit. It was stated that theDistrict Forum completely overlooked the aspect of status of the respondent under the Act and also further over looked sale circular no. 21/97 dated 01.07.1997 and Sale Circular no. 14/93 dated 16.04.1993 issued by the petitioner – authority which clearly indicated that temporary disconnection could be affected only if the consumer is not a defaulter and also that such request for temporary disconnection would be entertained on the condition that the consumer would pay monthly minimum charges for the month subsequent the disconnected period. The District Forum further overlooked the aspect that the respondent itself had requested for temporary disconnection following which the petitioner – corporation had disconnected the electricity connection on 14.03.2000.

9.     Learned counsel for the petitioner has further stated that in temporary disconnection of the electricity, the holder has to pay minimum charges and therefore, the bill sent to the complainant was as per the rules of the petitioner corporation.

10.   On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/ complainant stated that there was no decision on the application for temporary disconnection rather the connection was permanently disconnected on the ground that the complainant was a defaulter. In permanent disconnection, there is no provision for charging Minimum Monthly Charges (MMC). The District Forum has observed a glaring mistake and it has been ordered that the bill may be scrutinised properly, particularly the amount of Rs.34,945/- shown as sundry charges and the MMC from the bill from March to June 2000 was also removed. This was perfectly a legal order, however, the OP preferred an appeal before the State Commission and the State Commission has confirmed the District Forum’s order except MMC for March 2000 is required to be paid by the complainant.

11.   Both the fora below have given concurrent finding and therefore, the scope under the revision petition is quite limited and it was requested to dismiss the revision petition.

12.   We have carefully considered the arguments advanced by both the parties and examined the record. The main thrust of the petitioner has been that the fora below have not considered the status of the complainant. According to the petitioner, the complainant being a rice mill had obtained the electricity connection for commercial use and therefore, it cannot be a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act 1986. In this regard, it is seen that the cause of action arose in the year 2000,  and the complaint was filed in the year 2001, i.e., before the amendment  of 2003 in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 when the concept of commercial purpose in availing the services was included. Thus, the amendment made in the year 2003 will not be applicable in the present case. Thus, the complainant will be deemed to be a consumer within the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as prevailing before 2003.

13.   The State Commission has observed the following:

“14.   As regard levy of sundry charges amounting to Rs.33,945/- in the bill of March 2000, the OPs have not been able to give any explanation for the levy of these charges and in this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the quashing of these sundry charges by the District Forum is just, fair and legal.

15.    The case of the complainant is that the disconnection  was done without giving proper notice to the complainant and this a deficiency in service because instruction as per Section 24 of the India Electricity Act were not complied with. We are in consonance with the view held by District Forum that this action on the part of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and consequently, the OPs are not entitled to charge ACD from the complainant.

16.    A perusal of the bills clearly indicate that the bills for the month of January 2000, February 2000, March 2000, May 2000 and June 2000 have been negligently prepared because the OPs have charged the complainant power factor surcharge in the bills of January, February and March and even after having known that this amount was not chargeable have not given proper refund to the complainant. Further in the bill of March 2000 a sum of Rs.34,945/- has been wrongly charged as sundry charges. Even in the bills May and June, the MMC has been wrongly charged because the OPs were entitled to charge MMC for only one month after the TDCO as provided for vide sale circular no. 14/93 and it is, therefore, imperative that this wrong charging of bills be corrected. We endorsed the direction of the learned District Forum to the OPs to correct the bills vide the impugned order.”

14.   Clearly, the petitioner has admitted that disconnection was ordered on the request of the respondent and if this is the case, then clearly MMC was required to be paid only for one month. The facts have been correctly assessed by fora below, therefore, this Commission need not reassess the facts as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors. Vs. H&R Johnson (India) Ltd. and others, (2016) 8 Supreme Court Cases 286” where the following has been observed:

“17.  The National Commission has to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it only if the State Commission or the District Forum has either failed to exercise their jurisdiction or exercised when the same was not vested in them or exceeded their jurisdiction by acting illegally or with material irregularity.  In the instant case, the National Commission has certainly exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside the concurrent finding of fact recorded in the order passed by the State Commission which is based upon valid and cogent reasons.”   

15.    As seen from the above observation of the State Commission, this case has been rightly analysed by the State Commission and we do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order dated 24.08.2007 passed by the State Commission in Appeal no.359 of 2001 which calls for any interference from this Commission and therefore, the Revision petition no. 36 of 2008 is liable to be dismissed.

RP no. 333 of 2011

16.   Brief facts of the case are that on 02.02.2001, the petitioner tendered an application with the respondent seeking temporary disconnection of its electricity connection bearing A/C no.B7-1 for the period commencing from 17.02.2001 to 01.10.2001.  The respondent issued a letter no. 297/CA on 05.06.2001 wherein the respondent disclosed that the said electricity connection was disconnected on 11.05.2001. The petitioner again requested the respondent in the month of October 2001 to restore the electricity connection. The respondent raised a bill bearing no. 63 dated 21.12.2001 for Rs.3,91,369/- against the petitioner and the same was payable by 28.12.2001. The petitioner preferred a complaint on 27.12.2001 under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking deletion of amount of Rs.3,91,369/- illegally added in the bill no. 63 dated 21.12.2001 and further sought compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of mental agony, harassment and loss of business.

17.   The District Forum vide its order dated 22.09.2003 ruled in favour of the petitioner and directed the respondent to delete the amount of Rs.3,91,369/- added in bill no.63 dated 21.12.2001 and further directed the respondent to refund the amount if any deposited by the petitioner along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of deposit till its realisation and further saddled the respondent with cost of Rs.10,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, harassment, financial loss and cost of litigation.

18.   The respondent preferred an appeal against the District Forum’s order dated 22.09.2003 before the State Commission, Haryana on 30.10.2003.

19.   On 26.05.2010, the NCDRC transferred the appeal preferred before the State Commission, Haryana to State Commission, Chandigarh. On 11.10.2010, the appeal preferred by the respondent was allowed by the State Commission which set aside the District Forum’s order dated 22.09.2003 passed in favour of the petitioner. The State Commission held that the respondent is entitled to the amount raised vide bill no. 63 dated 21.12.2001 and no deficiency in service provided by the respondent existed.

20.   Hence, the present revision petition.

21.   Heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully examined the record. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the State Commission has failed to appreciate that the respondent illegally permanently disconnected the electricity connection of the petitioner. The State Commission has also failed to appreciate that the respondent did not serve clear notice as mandated in the Indian Electricity Act, prior to permanently disconnecting the petitioner’s connection. The State Commission has further failed to appreciate that though it was an admitted case of the respondent that they had permanently disconnected the electricity connection on 11.05.2001, yet they raised the bill against the said connection qua MMC and other charges until 21.12.2001.

22.   On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has stated that the position of the bill has been explained by the State Commission in paragraph 9 of its order which reads as under:

“9.    The complainant/ respondent had wanted the disconnection for the period from 19.02.2001 to 01.10.2001. It exceeded the period of six months. As per Sales Circular no. 14 of 1993, the request of TDCO beyond he period of six months is to be referred by the respective SEs to CEs/ OP concerned for decision and the CE (OP) may allow temporary disconnection for a maximum continuous period of 12 months on the merits of each case. According to the respondent he had already paid minimum monthly charges for March 2001 also. However, since the request for temporary disconnection had been forwarded to the Chief Engineer, the complainant/ respondent was liable to pay the charges for the month of April 2001 also. It is not the case of the complainant if he paid any charges for consumption of electricity during the month of April 2001. As per sales circular no. 14 of 1993, it cannot be said that the complainant was not liable to pay any charges for April 2001 and since he had not paid any, the permanent disconnection in May 2001 was fully justified on account of non-payment of charges for April 2001.”

23.   Learned counsel for the respondent has further stated that as temporary disconnection was sought for more than six months, the matter was sent to the Chief Engineer, that is why disconnection could not be made in March 2001 and it was actually done in May 2001, therefore, the complainant was required to pay the bill upto the date of disconnection, therefore, when the complainant requested for reconnection, a bill was sent to the complainant. Accordingly, there is no illegality in sending the bill. The State Commission has not found any shortcoming in the bill.

24.   We have carefully considered the arguments advanced by both the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record. When the complainant has asked for temporary disconnection for more than six months, the complainant should have known that this was likely to take more time as proposal would be sent to the Chief Engineer. After going through the observations of the State Commission as quoted above, it seems that the bill was correctly raised by the respondent/ opposite party and we do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order of the State Commission passed in Appeal no.2595 of 2003 which calls for any interference from this Commission. Consequently, RP No. 333 of 2011 is liable to be dismissed.

25.   On the basis of the above discussion, both the RP nos.36 of 2008 and 333 of 2011 are dismissed.