National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Shri Avinash vs Executive Engineer & Ors. on 25 March, 2014
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 3850 of 2008 (Against the order dated 18.07.2008 in ORi. Appeal No.A1587/05 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Nagpur Circuit Bench) Shri Avinash S/o V. Prabhune R/o 85, S.E Railway Colony (1st lay out) Shri Nilayam Apartment Rana Pratap Nagar, Nagpur 440022 Phone 9049800158 .....Petitioner Versus 1. Executive Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. (Formerly MSEB), Congress Nagar Division Dhantoli, Nagpur- 440012 2. Asst. Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. (Formerly MSEB), Trimurty Nagar Sub Division Trimurty Nagar, Nagpur 440022 3. Junior Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. (Formerly MSEB), Rana Pratap Nagar Complaint Centre Nagpur- 440022 ........Respondents BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE D. K. JAIN, PRESIDENT HONBLE MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER For the Petitioner : In person For the Respondent : Mr. Ajit Bhasme & Mr. Pankaj Mishra, Advocate PRONOUNCED ON: 25/3/2014. ORDER
PER MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER The matter in this revision petition arises from disconnection of power supply to the house of the complainant on 19.8.2004. The last date for payment of this bill of Rs.1348.54 was 3.8.2004. It was paid by a cheque of 2.8.2004. The amount was debited to the bank account of the complainant on 4.8.2004.
2. As per the complaint before the District Forum--
11.) The complainant submits that arbitrary disconnection of electricity even after payment of the bill and without following the procedure contemplated by the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 amounts to deficiency in service as defined u/s. 2(1)(g) of the Act. It is further submitted that the said action was also in contradiction with the conditions printed on the electricity bill itself. It has been specifically printed on the bill that consumer has to pay the bill on or before the due date. Since the complainant has paid the bill on 02/08/2004, a day prior to the due date (i.e. 03/08/2004) therefore it was incumbent on the O.Ps. to have verified their own record before taking such drastic step. In fact the action of O.Ps to put Complainant in the default list was illegal. The instructions printed on Bill shows that the electricity supply will be disconnected without further intimation in case arrears shown in (EKUN THAKBAKI) ARE NOT PAID WITHIN 15 DAYS. From copy of the Bill, it is evident that no arrears were outstanding against Complainant. The O.Ps were further negligent in not giving the notice or even intimation before disconnecting the electricity supply. The O.P. no.1 being the supervising authority of O.P. and 2 no. 3 even after receipt of the letters from the complainant, have not taken any step to redress the grievance. In fact reply dt 17/09/04 (DOC No.5) shows that O.P. No.2 has not taken the matter seriously & O.P. No. 3 did not reply at all. Therefore the O.Ps were negligent in providing the services, which amounts to deficiency in service.
12.) The Complainant further submits that the saddest part of MSEB team action is that they are not keeping any evidence of disconnection/ reconnection at Consumer level, which is highly objectionable. So it becomes difficult for consumer to lodge complaint against MSEBs harassment.
There must be several unreported cases of such disconnections. Complainant approached & requested all bottom to TOPMOST Authorities of MSEB at Nagpur Level but all efforts were found to be in vain.
3. While allowing the above complaint, the District Forum noted that
3).
O.P. No.1 in reply says that the bill issued to complainant on 28/07/2004 of Rs.1350/- was having last date of payment as 03/08/2004. He has accepted that complainant has paid the bill on 02/08/2008 by cheque. But the said cheque amount was debited on 04/08/2004, but O.P. has not received the bill amount on last date of bill i.e. 03/08/2004. The information about payment of above cheque was not received upto 19/08/2004 by O.P., hence his supply was disconnected. He has not done it deliberately & intentionally, whereas complainant has not produced the paid bill receipt so incidence of disconnection is happened. O.P. has further said that there is no necessity of giving notice before disconnection as it is already printed in the bills.
4.) On receipt of complaint from complainant, O.P. has issued directives to concerned officials to express apology to complainant & even after receipt of such apology letter by the complainant, complaint has filed for minor reason, hence O.P. has requested Forum to dismiss the complaint.
5.) The hearing/argument on the said matter was heard on 06/07/2005 by Forum.
Complainant has represented in person whereas O.P. has argued through Advocate. Thereafter, Forum has considered Complaint of Complainant, enclosed documents, complainants affidavit & O.P.s reply, their affidavit. Forum has observed following things.
6.) Complainant has enclosed DOC No. 6 as O.P.s letter dtd 17/09/2004 with Complaint. O.P. No.1 has sent it to O.P. No.2 by taking cognizance of complaint & instructed not to repeat same in future. Similarly, O.P. No.2 has been directed to meet complaint in person for appraising the situation.
7.) Further enclosed DOC No.5, letter dtd 17/09/2005 from O.P. No.2. The O.P. has expressed apology through thee said letter 7 expressed regrets for inconvenience caused to complainant.
8.) In fact, O.P. No.1 has directed O.P. No.2 to meet the complainant & express apology, but O.P. No.2 has sent official letter & expressed apology. It is surprising to note that, O.P. No.1 letter giving directives to O.P. no.2 is of dtd 17/09/2004 & O.P. No.2 apology letter is also of 17/09204, i.e. of the same date, What promptness (!), Especially, when the Complainant has made complaint regarding disconnection on date 20-21, whereas upto 25/08/2004, O.P. could not even trace whether the complainant has paid the bill or not. But as soon as higher officials had issued directives through letter dated 17/09/2004, sent letter to the complainant expressing the apology on the same date, which is absolutely amazing.
4. The complainant filed an appeal before the State Commission, seeking enhancement of compensation. It was dismissed with the observation that the matter ought to have ended with the apology from the OPs.
5. The order of the State Commission is now challenged by the complainant in this revision petition. The case of the revision petitioner is that it is not a matter of mere disconnection of electricity. It shows how the consumer routinely suffers as the hand of the respondent. The primary ground of challenge is that the State Commission should have gone into the basic question whether the law, as laid down in Section 56 of the Electricity Act 2003, has been followed by the respondent before disconnection of power supply to his house.
6. Section 56 deals with disconnection of supply in default of payment. The provision reads as follows:-
56. Disconnection of supply in default of payment- (1) Where any person neglects to pay any charge for electricity or any sum other than a charge for electricity due from him to a licensee or the generating company in respect of supply, transmission or distribution or wheeling of electricity to him, the licensee or the generating company may, after giving not less than fifteen clear days notice in writing, to such person and without prejudice to his rights to recover such charge or other sum by suit, cut off the supply of electricity and for that purpose cut or disconnect any electric supply line or other works being the property of such licensee or the generating company through which electricity may have been supplied, transmitted, distributed or wheeled and may discontinue the supply until such charge or other sum, together with any expenses incurred by him in cutting off and reconnecting the supply, are paid, but no longer:
Provided that the supply of electricity shall not be cut off if such person deposits, under protest,-
(a) An amount equal to the sum claimed from him, or
(b) The electricity charges due from him for each month calculated on the basis of average charge for electricity paid by him during the preceding six months, Whichever is less, pending disposal of any dispute between him and the licensee.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no sum due from any consumer, under this section shall be recoverable after the period of two years from the date when such sum became first due unless such sum has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrear of charges for electricity supplied and the licensee shall not cut off the supply of the electricity.
7. The petitioner, arguing his case in person, stressed that the above provision lays down a mandatory requirement of notice in writing of not less than 15 clear days before the power supply is cut off.
In his case, no notice of any kind was issued, which is a clear violation of Section 56, mentioned above.
As per the petitioner, the entire episode of disconnection on 19.8.2004 and subsequent reconnection with apology by the respondents would have been avoided, had the requirement of law under Section 56 been complied with and had notice been served following the procedure laid down under Section 117 of the Act.
8. Mr. Ajit Bhasme, learned counsel for the respondents, has argued that the requirement of law has not been ignored. The last date for payment in this case was 3.8.2004 and the disconnection was admittedly carried out on 19.8.2004, which was a clear 15 days from the last date for payment of the bill. Learned counsel referred to the relevant bill in this behalf, which has the following notice printed on it:-
NOTICE-
The amount of Total Arrears Indiacted in this bill is to be deposited within 15 days from the receipt of this bill otherwise as per Indian Electricity Act 2003, Section 56 (1), supply will be disconnected without giving further notice. Thereafter for restoration of electric supply, the amount as per rules will have to be deposited.
9. Having carefully considered the bill in question and the other records submitted before us, we do not accept the argument of learned counsel as correct representation of the matter. Clearly, the notice printed on the bill is in relation to the amount mentioned as arrears therein. The bill itself shows that there was no arrears, as on that day. As a matter of fact, the bill shows negative arrears of Rs.2.74. It is for this reason that the net payable amount of the bill is shown as Rs.1348.54 as against the gross bill amount of Rs.1351.28. We therefore, agree with the contention of the revision petitioner that had the respondents issued a notice under Section 56, his reply would have clearly enlightened them on the payment of the bill, well before the respondents chose to disconnect the power supply. Even from the pleadings of the respondents before the District Forum, it is clear that payment of the amount of Rs.1348.54 in the relevant bill was not verified before disconnection of power supply.
10. It is necessary to observe here that even if the respondents entertained an unverified and factually incorrect impression that the bill had not been paid, the act of disconnection of power supply on 19.8.2004 was in total disregard and violation of the requirement under Sections 56 and 117 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The impugned order has not gone into these aspects of the matter.
It has placed complete reliance on the fact that the power supply was restored on 24.8.2004 and a letter of regret for disconnection had been sent to the complainant. In our view, the conduct of the respondents deserved to be viewed much more seriously. Precipitate action for disconnection of power supply, without any evidence of prior verification of payment of the bill, was a serious lapse on the part of the respondents. It was compounded further by the fact that even procedurally the action was in flagrant violation of the requirement of Sections 56 and 117 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
11. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Further, in the facts and circumstances of this case, we also deem it necessary to enhance the quantum of compensation. Accordingly, the amount of compensation is enhanced from Rs.1000/- to Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) and the cost of Rs.1000/- awarded by the District Forum is enhanced to Rs.2000/- (Two Thousand).
...Sd/-.
(D.K. JAIN, J.) PRESIDENT ...Sd/-.
(VINAY KUMAR) MEMBER S./-