State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Superintending Engineer ... vs Tmt. R. Audaiyammal 3Rd Street, K.M.S. ... on 17 March, 2011
BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI BEFORE : Honble Thiru Justice M.THANIKACHALAM PRESIDENT Thiru S. SAMBANDAM MEMBER II F.A.NO.680/2008 (Against order in OP.NO.74/2007 on the file of the DCDRF, Theni) DATED THIS THE 17th DAY OF MARCH 2011 1.
The Superintending Engineer (Electricity) Tamilnadu Electricity Board Theni
2. The Assistant Engineer Tamilnadu Electricity Board Bodinayakanur, Theni District Appellants/ Opposite parties Vs. Tmt. R. Audaiyammal W/o.
Ramadoss 3rd Street, K.M.S. Layout Bodinayakanur Town & Taluk Theni District Respondent/ Complainant The Respondent as complainant filed a
complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.20/- towards extra charges collected towards electricity, alongwith compensation of Rs.15000/- and cost. The District Forum allowed the complaint.
Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.28.02.2008 in OP.No.74/2007.
This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 07.03.2011. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsels on both sides, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order:
Counsel for the Appellants/ Opposite parties: M/s. N. Saravanan Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant: M/s.J. Ranjani Devi M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT
1. The opposite parties are the appellants.
2. Facts leading to this appeal The complainant/respondent, is the owner of service connections V466 and 201, for which he was paying the consumption charges regularly, without any default. On 19.2.2006, the opposite parties have claimed, an additional sum of Rs.20/-, in addition to usual consumption charges, for which explanation was sought for, issuing notice, which elicited a reply, as if the meter was checked, for that the complainant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.20/-.
3. The opposite parties or their men, have not at all examined, or tested the meter, on any date, and therefore, the claim of Rs.20/- is unjustifiable, and they cannot impose additional payment of RS.20/-, unreasonably, which should be construed as deficiency in service, which had also caused mental agony to the complainant. Thus leveling deficiency, accusing the opposite party, a consumer complaint was filed, for refund of Rs.20/- paid, in addition to a payment of -, Rs.15000/- as compensation, alongwith cost of Rs.5000/-.
4. The opposite parties, admitting the meters owned by the complainant, resisted the complaint, contended that on 14.12.2005, meters were examined, tested, for which alone, as per the board circular, which was issued as per rule 46, of the Electricity Act, a sum of RS.20/- was included in the bill, which cannot be termed as deficiency or negligent act, thereby prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
5. The District Forum, without understanding what was the accusation leveled by the complainant, taking different route of its own, has invented a case of its own, that the rules does not prescribe the consumer should bear the cost of the inspection and it does not have the legislative sanction, deduced a conclusion, there was deficiency on the part of the opposite party. Thus concluding, the District Forum directed the opposite parties to refund the sum of Rs.20/- alongwith compensation of Rs.5000/-, for the recovery of Rs.20/-, as per order dt.28.2.2008, which is under challenge on various grounds.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant, argued before us, that the District Forum, the understanding the circular, as well as not going through the rules relied on by the appellant, has rendered a defective, order which should not be allowed to stand, and in this view, the appeal deserves acceptance, which was opposed.
7. The complainant, as consumer of electricity, was drawing energy through service connection No.V466, is not in dispute, as seen from Ex.A1 also. In the meter card, the assessor while, charging the consumer for the actual unit consumed, had added Rs.20/-, on 19.2.2006.
On perusal of the meter card, not explanatory, the complainant sought details explanation, for collection of Rs.20/-, which he paid under Ex.A2 also, for which a reply was given, informing that on 14.12.2005, meter was inspected, under general inspection, for which alone Rs.20/- was collected. Therefore, it is not the case of the complainant, that the opposite parties failed in furnishing the details, sought for including Rs.20/-, in this view, one should construe generally, that there was no deficiency on the part of the opposite party.
8. The complainant not satisfied with the explanation, being a senior citizen, has filed the case, as if the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service, which was unfortunately accepted by the District Forum, without studying rules, understanding things properly, probably under the guise of helping the consumer, as if a person comes to court, should be given some relief, and the complaint should not be dismissed at all, and this kind of approach should be doscouraged. We are not against the consumer activism, whereas we are inclined, to favour, i.e., if legally sustainable, not offending legal provisions or the rules or guidelines framed under the Acts and Rules. In this case, later part alone happened, for which we will assign our reasons.
9. Rule 46 of Indian Electricity Rules 1956, empowers the Board for periodical inspection, and deficiency of consumer installation, wherein Sec.2 reads The fees for such inspection and test shall be determined by the Central or the State Government, as the case may be, in the case of each class of consumers and shall be payable by the consumer in advance. Based upon this rule, as seen from Ex.B6, circular was issued, prescribing uniform rate of Rs.20/- per service, as testing fees, for the inspection under Rule 46 of Indian Electricity Rule, 1956. Therefore, as improperly recorded by the District Forum, Ex.B6 cannot be termed as illegal, or it has no legislative sanction, and in fact, under the rule alone, quoting the same, the circular was passed, which we are not entitled to say, illegal or otherwise, since a consumer is bound by the rules and regulations of the Electricity Board, if he want to consume electricity. Therefore, in the collection of Rs.20/-, including this amount in the consumption card, cannot at all be described as illegal or negligence, or deficiency in service.
10. The case of the complainant was, that there was no inspection at all, and therefore the opposite parties are not entitled to collect Rs.20/-, as seen from the averments in the complaint. Therefore, the main question was, whether there was inspection on 14.12.2005, or not.
If there was no inspection, then the electricity board is not entitled to add Rs.20/-, in the meter card. The District Forum ought to have given a finding, whether there was an inspection or not, which it failed. The observation of the District Forum in paragraph 5, as if this kind of testing is unnecessary, since there was no violation of rules, or there are other people to inspect the meters, which is not the concern of the consumer forum. The District Forum ought to have given a finding, whether there was a inspection on 14.12.2005, if so, whether the opposite parties are entitled to collect Rs.20/-, for which there is no finding. A peculiar, observation was made, by the District Forum, that the officials are given number of vehicles, facilities, and therefore compelling the consumer to bear the cost of inspection is illegal, which should not be the endeavor of the District Forum, and we would say, with certainty, the District Forum exceeded its jurisdiction, entering into the arena of making the rules, or nullifying the rules, for which it has no jurisdiction at all. Ignoring this, let us see, whether there was inspection.
11. As seen from Ex.B1 and B2, service connection No.466, was inspected and report was submitted to the higher authorities. We find no reason to disbelieve the inspection report. The fact, previously the electricity board has not collected, this kind of fee, will not prevent the electricity board from inspecting the meter, once for all, collecting the fee, as per the circular, which was issued under Rule 46 of Indian Electricity Rules. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion, that there was no default of any kind, on the part of the opposite parties, and infact they followed the rules and regulations strictly, inspected the premises, included the cost in the meter, which cannot be termed as deficiency in service, and unfortunately, a vexatious false claim was made, which was accepted by the District Forum, which is to be dismissed, with cost, for that purpose the appeal is meritorious.
12. In the result, the appeal is allowed, setting aside the order of the District Forum in CC.No.74/2007, dt.28.2.2008, and the complaint is dismissed with cost of Rs.1000/-, to be paid by the complainant, to the appellants/opposite parties. There will be no order as to cost in this appeal.
Registry is directed to handover the Fixed Deposit Receipt, made by way of mandatory deposit, to the appellant, duly discharged.
S.SAMBANDAM M. THANIKACHALAM MEMBER II PRESIDENT INDEX : YES / NO Rsh/d/mtj/Bench-1/Electricity Board