State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. vs Mahant Ayodhya Dass on 15 November, 2022
Appeal No. Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. 15.11.2022
91 of 2014 Vs.
Mahant Ayodhya Dass
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND, DEHRADUN
Date of Institution: 30.05.2014
Date of Final Hearing: 14.11.2022
Date of Pronouncement: 15.11.2022
First Appeal No. 91 / 2014
Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd.
Through its Executive Engineer
Electricity Distribution Division, (Urban), Haridwar
(Through: Smt. Shashi Yogeshwar, Advocate)
.....Appellant
VERSUS
Mahant Ayodhya Dass Chela Mahant Narayan Dass
President and Mahant Shir Ram Ma Nandiya, Shri Vaishnav Dham Trust
Shravan Nath Nagar, Haridwar
None for the Respondent
Coram:
Ms. Kumkum Rani, Judicial Member II
Mr. B.S. Manral, Member
ORDER
(Per: Ms. Kumkum Rani, Judicial Member II):
This appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 25.04.2014 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Haridwar (hereinafter to be referred as the District Commission) in consumer complaint No. 332 of 2012 styled as Mahant Ayodhya Dass Vs. Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd., whereby and wherein the complaint was allowed.1
Appeal No. Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. 15.11.2022 91 of 2014 Vs. Mahant Ayodhya Dass
2. According to the complaint it is averred that the complainant was possessing three electricity connection, out of which two connections of 2Kilowatt and one electricity connection 4 Kilowatt, connection No. 323/001444, was issued from the opposite party. The bills of above three connections were regularly being paid by the complainant, but the opposite party had presented the complainant's above mentioned electricity connection as commercial in place of domestic connection, about which a complaint was made and thereafter one electricity connection of 8Kilowatt was got allotted in place of the above three connections; a ceiling report dated 02.10.2003 to this effect was also prepared and installing the electronic metre on the Electric Poll, a ceiling report dated 01.09.2019 was issued. The complainant had made the payment of all electricity bills but the opposite party submitted a bill of Rs. 51,182/- showing old demand / old recovery which was also paid by the complainant. It is also alleged that the opposite party further issued a electricity bill dated 16.11.2012 worth Rs. 3,81,819/- of the connection No. 001444, wrongly and illegally, without any right and jurisdiction, thereby the opposite party did deficiency in service on its part, therefore, the complainant brought this complaint before the District Forum / Commission.
3. The opposite party, in its written statement has pleaded that the complaint was not filed with correct facts; the electricity connection No. 691/323/019044 was allotted to the complainant of 10 Kilo watts; the complainant further submitted a letter in the month of July, 2012 to the opposite party to expand the electricity load, then a letter No. 5908 was given to the complainant to get approval from the complainant for 20Kilo watt connection and to deposit Rs. 17,312/- as security money with Rs. 2,000/- service and development charges (total amount of Rs. 19,312/-). The complainant was also apprised that his connection shall be changed from domestic to commercial connection and connection 2 Appeal No. Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. 15.11.2022 91 of 2014 Vs. Mahant Ayodhya Dass number will be 696/0323/001444 in place of connection No. 691/0323/001444. Having been satisfied with the above mentioned facts, the complainant deposited on 08.08.2012 Rs. 19,312/- vide receipt No. 32/91391 to the office of the opposite party, thereafter the metre of the complainant was changed and ceiling report was given to the representative of the complainant. The version of the complainant that the bill be sent to him of domestic connection in place of commercial electricity connection, is incorrect and wrong. Entire amount paid to the opposite party's department was duly adjusted in complainant's bill, hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. After hearing both the parties and after perusing the record, the learned District Commission passed the impugned judgment on 25.04.2014 wherein it is held as under:-
"f"kdk;rdrkZ dh ;g f"kdk;r rn~uqlkj Lohdkj dh tkrh gSA ç"uxr fcy fnukafdr 16-11-2012 fujLr fd;k tkrk gS vkSj foi{kh foHkkx dks funsZf"kr fd;k tkrk gS fd vkns"k dh frfFk ls ,d ekg ds Hkhrj og f"kdk;rdrkZ dks 10]672@&:0 ¼nl gtkj N% lkS cgkRrj½ dh /kujkf"k dk Hkqxrkuk fd;k tkuk lqfuf"pr djsa vkSj lkFk gh lkFk 51]182@&:0 dh vf/kd tek /kujkf"k dks mlds vkxs ds fcyksa esa lek;ksftr fd;k tk;sA ;fn 10]672@&:0 dh /kujkf"k Hkh foi{kh foHkkx f"kdk;rdrkZ dks ugha nsuk pkgrk gS rks og mls Hkh vkxs ds fcyksa esa lek;ksftr djsAa "
5. On having been aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of the District Commission, the appellant has preferred the present appeal 3 Appeal No. Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. 15.11.2022 91 of 2014 Vs. Mahant Ayodhya Dass contending that the appellant has failed to show as to how there are dues against the respondent and if any bill was given to the respondent making his connection as non-domestic / commercial then the same is wrong. It is averred in the pleading that the new connection No. 696/0323/001444 which connection was given for the enhanced load of 20Kilowatt (old connection No.691/0323/001444). It is further averred that when the connection was converted from the domestic connection to commercial connection, which is due to error and for some period, the bills under domestic tariff were issued in place of commercial tariff. Accordingly, for this period only the difference of rate of domestic tariff, i.e. RTS-1 and the rate of commercial Tariff RTS-2 was charged in the bill. It is also contended that the respondent wanted to enhance his load for which he gave an application to the appellant vide Executive Engineer's letter No. 5908 dated 25.07.2012 for which he was asked to deposit Rs. 17,312/- as security amount for his enhance load of 20KW and Rs. 2,000/- as development charges (in all Rs. 19,312/-). Thereafter the respondent deposited Rs. 19,312/- on 08.08.2012 and after deposition of the above amount, metre was changed on 01.09.2012 and the sealing certificate of the new metre was given to the respondent, hence for the new connection and enhanced load, the respondent is liable for charges under the non-domestic / commercial tariff, which is RTS-2, but due to mistake, he was continued to charge under domestic Tariff RTS-1. Later on, the impugned bill was sent to him for commercial Tariff RTS-2. The bill is according to the Tariff. Therefore, the amount of Rs. 1,67,601/- after adjusting the deposits made by the respondent was due against him. It is averred in the appeal that the respondent has alleged that he has been charged a sum of Rs. 51,182/- in excess in the year 2000, for which there was no proof as well as claim was wholly barred by time. It is further averred that the load of three connection No. 323/1444, 323/19044 & 323/32303 enhanced to 8 KW, of which the number was 691/323/019044 of which the respondent is making payment 4 Appeal No. Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. 15.11.2022 91 of 2014 Vs. Mahant Ayodhya Dass regularly. There is no dispute about this connection. The learned Commission has failed to appreciate this fact that the metre No. 696/0301/009432 of 2KW of which the respondent is making payment and there is no dispute. In the appeal it is further averred that the lower Commission has failed to appreciate that the dispute is only about connection No. 696/0323/001444. In such light, the appellant has charged the amount of bill as per tariff and there is no deficiency in service; the matter also does not fall in unfair trade practice nor the respondent has suffered any loss. Hence, the appeal be allowed and the impugned judgment be dismissed with costs.
6. Vide order dated 08.09.2022, this Commission has passed an order to hear this appeal ex-parte. We have heard ex-parte arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and also perused the appeal and gone through the impugned judgment.
7. As per the complaint, the dispute pertains only with the connection number 696/0323/001444.
8. As per paper No. 8/3 and 8/4 of the District Commission's record and as per the pleadings of the appeal, the above mentioned connection is commercial connection not the domestic connection, as per the records.
9. Here it to mention that the District Commission in the impugned judgment has failed to appreciate that the appellant has charged a sum of Rs. 51,182/- in excess in the year of 2000 because on the record of the District Commission, there is no such proof that the opposite party has charged a sum of Rs. 51,182/- in excess in the year 2000.
5Appeal No. Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. 15.11.2022 91 of 2014 Vs. Mahant Ayodhya Dass
10. As per Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the District Forum shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. So far as the relief (B) of para No. 13 of the complaint is concerned, the cause of action to get such relief has already arisen in the year 2002, but for such relief, the complaint case was filed in the year of 2012. It is meant that the complaint for such relief is wholly time barred. Apart from it, the alleged connection is a commercial connection; the letter No. 5908 dated 25.07.2012 of the Executive Engineer and the deposition of security money alongwith development charges (total Rs. 19,312/-) by the complainant have proved that the alleged connection was changed from domestic to commercial with the approval of the complainant, hence, electricity bills shall be prepared as per tariff RTS-2, i.e. at commercial tariff. In such circumstances, the case is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum / District Commission for commercial transaction.
11. As per the noting available on the side of the order sheet dated 14.11.2022, it is mentioned by the Assistant Engineer Revenue that regular bills are being paid by the consumer against the connection No. 6960324001444 (old connection number 6960323001444) and no old dues to be recovered. Thus, as per the departmental report, entire dues has been paid by the respondent and no dues is outstanding.
12. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the respondent has paid the entire electricity bills and no outstanding amount is due. All the bills have already been cleared and paid by the consumer, hence, we are of the view that the impugned judgment passed by the District Commission is unjustified and is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is liable to be allowed.
6Appeal No. Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. 15.11.2022 91 of 2014 Vs. Mahant Ayodhya Dass
13. Appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment passed by the District Commission, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 332 of 2012 is hereby set aside. No order as to costs.
14. Statutory amount deposited by the appellant be returned to the appellant.
15. A copy of this Order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 /2019. The Order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties. The record of the District Commission be returned to the concerned District Commission alongwith copy of this judgment for record and necessary information.
16. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Order.
(Ms. Kumkum Rani) Judicial Member II (Mr. B.S. Manral) Member Pronounced on: 15.11.2022 7