State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Assistant Executive ... vs The Chief Engineer, Electricity ... on 25 February, 2010
BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI Present Hon'ble Thiru Justice M. THANIKACHALAM PRESIDENT FA.376/2006 (Against the order in O.P.99/2004 on the file of DCDRC, Tirunelveli) DATED THIS THE 25th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2010 1.
The Assistant Executive Engineer, | Electricity Board, | Thiruchendur Road, Samathanapuram, | Palayamkottai. | | Appellants/Opposite Parties
2. The Chief Engineer, | Electricity Board, | Anna Building, Maharajanagar, | Palayamkottai. | Vs. D. Devaraj, | Electronic Centre, | Respondent/Complainant 11, Municipal Complex, | Seevalaperi Road, | Palayamkottai. | The respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the appellants/opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony, to pay Rs.490/- collected as excess amount and to pay the 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.23.01.2006 in C.C.99/2004.
This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 22.02.2010. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsels on eitherside, this commission made the following order:
Counsel for the Appellants/O.Ps. : Mr.N.Saravanan, Advocate.
Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant :
Mr.K.Muralidharan, Advocate.
M. THANIKACHALAM J. PRESIDENT
1. The unsuccessful opposite parties are the appellants.
2. The respondent/complainant was consuming energy through the meter fixed in the premises, in the name of the Commissioner, Tirunelveli, being a tenant. This meter was removed by the second opposite party alleging that the seal was broken, without issuing any notice to the consumer. When the complainant went to the first opposite party office, they have also collected a sum of Rs.490/-
apart from the consumption charges, as if a new meter has to be fixed which is available even for Rs.250/- locally.
Thus, the opposite parties having committed deficiency in service and having collected unnecessarily Rs.490/-, caused mental agony, for which, there should be a direction to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/-, in addition to, refund a sum of Rs.490/-. Thus, a claim has been lodged before the District Forum, Tirunelveli.
3. The opposite parties, questioning and denying the various allegations in the complaint, have stated that on 26.1.2004, the valuer of the Department, who inspected the premises, had noticed that MRT seal was broken and therefore the same was removed, when questioned by the complainant in the office, detailed explanation was given, that after rectifying the seal, the meter was refixed, for which, installation charge and meter charge of Rs.490/- was collected, which cannot be termed, as excess and that the alleged mental agony and sufferings are imaginary in nature, thereby, praying to dismiss the complaint.
4. The District Forum, on the basis of the affidavits filed by either parties as well scanning the documents marked on either side, came to the conclusion, that the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service, while removing the meter in not giving notice and that by removing the meter on false grounds, they have caused mental agony to the complainant and therefore a direction came to be issued to refund a sum of Rs.490/- collected, as well, for a sum of Rs.4,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and damages with costs, as per the order dated 23.01.2006, which is under challenge.
5. Heard, the learned counsel appearing for either side, perused the documents, written submissions as well as the order of the District Forum.
6. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants, that when the Department peoples have noticed the MRT seal broken, it is their duty to remove the meter and affix proper seal then re-fix the same, which was done in this case, for which, no notice is required, which was not properly analyzed by the District Forum. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the appellants, that by doing their duty, the opposite parties have not committed any deficiency or mental agony and therefore question of ordering compensation does not arise for consideration, which was not properly analyzed by the District Forum, thereby, it had committed mistake, not only on facts, but on law, which deserves to be set aside.
7. On the other hand, it is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/complainant, that it is the duty of the opposite parties to give notice while removing the meter, that there was no tampering of seal at any point of time and this is was make belief affair to cover the mistake committed by the Department people, which was properly analyzed and just conclusion was reached, ordering amounts, not required to be interfered by this Commission.
8. The complainant is having an Electronic Centre at No.11, Municipal Complex, Seevalaperi Road, Palayamkottai, probably which belongs to the Municipality, where the meter is also fixed by the Electricity Board, for the consumption of energy and that meter stands in the name of the Commissioner, as seen from the records. This meter was removed from the premises on 10.3.2004, as if there was breaking of the seal. The complainant was directed to pay a sum of Rs.490/-, for rectifying the defects in the meter namely reaffixing the seal and for refixing the same, either new meter or the same meter. It is the specific case of the complainant, while removing the meter, no notice has been given and entries were made in the documents falsely, as if there was tampering in the seal. Thus, accusing, a complaint has been filed, which received the acceptance in the hands of the District Forum, now under challenge.
9. The removal of the meter from the premises of the complainant and the fixing a new meter, for which, a sum of Rs.490/- has been collected are all admitted. It is the specific case of the opposite parties/appellants, that the Valuer of the consumption or the Department people while inspected the premises had noticed the missing of MRT seal, whether it would be described as tampering or not.
In this case, on the ground of MRT seal missing, no penalty has been imposed upon the complainant, as if he consumed energy more than the unit, as recorded by the meter. Therefore, there cannot be any genuine grievance on the part of the complainant, that by removing the meter, have caused mental agony or the opposite parties have put him into loss monetarily. The main grievance appears to be, which is also conclusion of the District Forum, that no notice has been issued or given before removing the meter. If it is a question of misusing the meter or tampering, then calling upon the consumer to pay more consumption charges, then only question of issuing notice may arise, in order to say, that an opportunity should have been given to the consumer. In this case, as said above, no penalty has been imposed and no provision of law also brought to my notice, that before removing the meter, which is under control of the Electricity Board, notice should be given to the consumer. In this view, for not giving notice before removing the meter, I cannot say that the Department has committed deficiency in service, thereby causing mental agony to the complainant.
10. As seen from Ex.B1, on three occasions, the Meter Reader has noted "MRT Seal missing" and finally after fixing, a sum of Rs.490/- included saying "MRT Seal missing". This Card was in the possession of the consumer namely the complainant and therefore he should have had knowledge about the entry also. In order to avoid this presumption, an allegation was made as if the entries were made at later point of time, for which, I do not have any supporting evidence. In the register maintained by the Department also as seen from Ex.B2, for this meter, it is noted "meter seal broken", thereby, indicating not only the entries were made in the Meter Card, but also corresponding entries in the register maintained by the Department.
If really there was no breakage or missing of MRT seal, the Department would not have taken such an action, since they are not going to be benefited in any way, making this kind of false entries in the records. Thus, accepting the case of the opposite parties, I conclude, there is no deficiency, on the part of the opposite parties, either in removing the meter or in not giving notice, which was not properly analyzed by the District Forum.
11. There is no evidence also, that the meter was available for Rs.250/-, for which, more charge was collected, as seen from the proceedings Ex.B4. This amount collected was informed to the consumer, in which also I am unable to find any error. Thus, the removal of the meter, when the Valuer has noticed the missing of the seal, and refixing the same, will not come within the meaning of deficiency of service, and for the imaginary complaints, unfortunately the District Forum has granted compensation, as well for the service rendered, amount collected also ordered to be refunded erroneously, which deserves to be erased.
11. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order of the District Forum in OP No.99/2004, dt.23.01.2006 is set aside, and the complaint is dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to cost, throughout.
The Registry is directed to handover the Fixed Deposit Receipt, made towards the mandatory deposit, to the appellants/opposite parties duly discharged, since appellants succeeded, and there is no need to retain the FDR.
M. THANIKACHALAM PRESIDENT INDEX :
YES / NO Ns/Mtj/Miscell/smb