State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Uttarakhand Power Corporation Limited ... vs Sh. Raghunath Chuchra on 17 February, 2011
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRADUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 323 / 2007
1. Uttarakhand Power Corporation Limited
through its Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division,
Mayapur, Haridwar
2. Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division
Jwalapur, Haridwar
......Appellants / Opposite Parties
Versus
Sh. Raghunath Chuchra S/o Sh. Bal Mukand
R/o Gulab Bagh, Near Hanuman Garhi
Kankhal, Haridwar
......Respondent / Complainant
Sh. S.M. Jain, Learned Counsel for the Appellants
Sh. M.K. Kohli, Learned Counsel for Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Justice B.C. Kandpal, President
C.C. Pant, Member
Dated: 17/02/2011
ORDER
(Per: C.C. Pant, Member):
This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.08.2007 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar, partly allowing the consumer complaint No. 481 of 2006 and directing the Uttarakhand Power Corporation Limited to cancel the electricity bills issued against the complainant and to prepare a fresh bill within a month of the date of the order on the basis of the actual meter reading adding therewith 50% of the bill amount as surcharge and also to adjust the amount of Rs. 3,000/- deposited by the complainant on 05.03.2007.
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the complainant Sh. Raghunath Chuchra owns a house in Niranjani Akhara, Mayapur, 2 Haridwar consisting of one room, a kitchen and a bathroom in which his old parents are living. The Uttarakhand Power Corporation Limited (for short "UPCL") had given an electricity connection No. 2045 dated 23.06.1995. The complainant has alleged that the opposite parties never issued electricity bills and had disconnected the said connection in the year 1999. Since then, his parents have been requesting the opposite parties to take the reading of the meter, so that the bill amount could be paid and the connection be restored. The opposite party did not pay any heed to their request. Ultimately, after a lot of persuasion, the officials of the UPCL took the meter reading on 01.02.2006 which was found as 3308. On the basis of this reading, a provisional (or kachcha) bill dated 30.09.2006 was issued by the electricity department for sum of Rs. 87,499/-. When the complainant objected to it, the UPCL's official again took the reading on 05.10.2006 which was again found as 3308. The bill was revised by the electricity department, reducing the bill amount from Rs. 87,499/- to Rs. 44,759/-. The complainant has alleged that no details of this bill amount were provided to him. Since no bill was issued by the opposite parties and the connection was disconnected in the year 1999, the units consumed by him can not be more than 3308 based on the reading taken by the opposite parties. Thus, the bill amount should be Rs. 6,616/- only. When the parents of the complainant met the officials of the UPCL with the request to amend the bill accordingly, they refused to do so and directed them to deposit the amount within 7 days. Upon this, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar, which was partly allowed by the District Forum vide its order dated 29.08.2007 in the above terms. Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite parties have filed this appeal.
33. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that the District Forum has acted beyond its jurisdiction by directing the appellants to prepare a new bill on the basis of the meter reading and adding 50% of surcharge because the District Forum has no power to reduce the levy of surcharge. In the matters of tariff, the District Forum can not interfere. Referring to "The Electricity Supply (Consumers) Regulations, 1984", the learned counsel submitted that if there is a dispute with regard to the correctness of the bill, the consumer should notify the supplier in writing about the disputed item in the bill and the grounds of dispute under Regulation No. 19(v). Even if the reading is not taken, it is the legal and contractual obligation of the consumer to give reading to the department and get the bill prepared as provided in Regulation No. 19(iv). According to the learned counsel, the appellants have been taking the readings of the complainant's electric meter and bills were also issued to him regularly. In proof thereof, the learned counsel pointed out to the billing statement at Paper No. 31, in which period-wise readings, bill amount and outstanding amounts have been shown. Concluding the arguments, the learned counsel submitted that the appellants have, thus, not made any deficiency in service and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants, in support of his contentions, relied on the following decisions:
(i) Decision dated 04.11.2004 of this Commission in First Appeal No. 375 of 2003; U.P. State Electricity 4 Distribution Division Vs. M/s Garhwal Rolling Mills (Pvt.) Limited.
(ii) Decision dated 17.07.1996 of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in C.M.W.P. No. 21537 of 1996; Amitabh Textiles Mills Ltd., Dehradun and another Vs. U.P. State Electricity Board, Dehradun and another.
(iii) Punjab State Electricity Board and another Vs. Ashwani Kumar; (1997) 5 Supreme Court Cases 120.
(iv) Hari Shankar and others Vs. U.P. State Electricity Board and another; AIR 1974 Allahabad 70 (V 61 C 11).
(v) Gwalior Ice Factory Vs. M.P. Electricity Board; 2002 (1) CPR 207 (NC).
(vi) M/s Pilibhit Ispat (Private) Limited and others Vs. U.P. State Electricity Board and others; 1996 All. L.J. 1288.
6. The learned counsel for the complainant - respondent reiterated the submissions made in the consumer complaint and affidavit of the complainant.
7. We considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. On an appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the District Forum has taken a just view in the matter and the order passed by it does not need any interference. The contention that the complainant should have taken resort to the provisions prescribed under Regulation No. 19(v) of the Regulations, 1984 for correcting the bill, is not tenable because the complainant wanted to know as to how the bill amount of Rs. 44,759/-, which was initially Rs. 87,499/-, was arrived at. Even we are unable to understand as to how these amounts have been calculated. So far as the billing statement is concerned, it is apparently wrong and disbelievable. For example, the last reading of 2/06 is 4311 and the 5 current reading should either be 4311 or more, but the billing statement shows it as 3309. Again, the last reading of 8/06 is 4311, but the current reading has been shown as 3308. Thus, all these inconsistent readings lead us to believe that the officials of the UPCL never visited the premises of the complainant and all the readings were prepared on the office table.
8. Further, Paper No. 25 speaks that the complainant's meter reading was 3308 and the connection was found disconnected. This is an ample evidence that, as averred by the complainant, the connection was disconnected in the year 1999. Thus, if we look into all these facts and circumstances of the case in totality, i.e., incorrect billing statement, lack of transparency in the calculation of bill amount, inspection note (Paper No. 25) indicating that the connection was disconnected long back and absence of any inspection report if the meter was defective, we have logical reasons to believe that the complainant had actually suffered a lot of harassment and inconvenience and with the state of affairs of UPCL, he was not going to get any relief if he would have taken resort to the provisions of Regulation No. 19(v). The procedure adopted by the UPCL can not be said to be fair by any stretch of imagination. Therefore, the District Forum had to formulate its own method for arriving at a bill amount. In our opinion, in the absence of any evidence in respect of the meter that it was defective, the District Forum has rightly taken a decision that the bill should be prepared on the basis of the actual reading taken by the UPCL and 50% of the amount should be added to it towards surcharge. We do not agree with the contention of the appellants that the District Forum has no power to reduce the surcharge and to interfere in the matters of tariff. If the record of the UPCL is not reliable and the methodology of preparing bills lacks transparency, the District Forum can take just decision for the 6 redressal of the grievances of the consumers even in respect of surcharge and matters of tariff.
9. In all the reported cases, it has been held that the consumer has a remedy for his grievances in respect of incorrect bills under Regulation No. 19(v). In the case of M/s Pilibhit Ispat (Private) Limited and others (supra), the decision is in respect of minimum charges. But the facts of all these cases vary from the instant one. In the instant case, the meter was not found defective. It was also found that the connection was disconnected long back and the billing statement of the UPCL has incorrect and inconsistent readings. The UPCL did not initiate recovery proceedings against the consumer in due course of time. In such cases, if the consumer complaint is dismissed with the direction to the consumer to approach the department under the provisions of Regulation No. 19(v), he is not going to get any relief. Rather, he would be left on the mercy of the department and in such situation, there is every chance of consumer's exploitation. In the case of Punjab State Electricity Board and another (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that ordinarily the Civil Court has jurisdiction to go into and try the disputed question of civil nature where the fundamental fairness of procedure has been violated. In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court found that the statutory circulars indicated that the fairness of procedure has been prescribed in the rules and is being followed. By necessary implication, the cognizance of the Civil Court has been excluded. As a consequence, the Civil Court shall not be justified in entertaining the suit. In the instant case, as discussed above, we are of the view that fundamental fairness of procedure has been violated by the appellants because the office record is incorrect, timely action for recovery of dues has not been taken, meter of the consumer was neither defective, nor the seal was found tampered and the calculation 7 methodology lacks transparency. Therefore, the decisions relied upon by the appellants, can not help them. The District Forum has not erred in entertaining the consumer complaint. The view taken by the District Forum is just and proper. However, as held by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of M/s Pilibhit Ispat (Private) Limited and others (supra), minimum charges are part of the "tariff" and are payable also for the period subsequent to the disconnection. Meaning thereby, if the connection was disconnected in the year 1999, the consumer shall have to pay minimum charges till the time the connection is permanently disconnected. Thus, the appellants may levy minimum charges for the period subsequent to the year 1999, when the connection was disconnected, but we are of the view that this amount should be written off by the appellants, otherwise it would cause a lot of hardship to the complainant. This is due to the slackness of the appellants who did not take timely action in respect of recovery of dues. Therefore, the justice demands that such a demand raised for the period subsequent to the disconnection, should not be realised.
10. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.
11. Appeal is dismissed. The appellants are directed to take action as stated above and also to restore the electricity connection of the complainant within a period of 7 days after receiving the bill amount calculated as per the direction given by the District Forum. No order as to costs.
(C.C. PANT) (JUSTICE B.C. KANDPAL) K