State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Vidhut Vitran Nigam vs Smt Deep Devi on 21 November, 2023
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UP C-1 Vikrant Khand 1 (Near Shaheed Path), Gomti Nagar Lucknow-226010 First Appeal No. A/2009/1528 ( Date of Filing : 07 Sep 2009 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated in Case No. of District State Commission) 1. Vidhut Vitran Nigam a ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Smt Deep Devi a ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PRESIDENT PRESENT: Dated : 21 Nov 2023 Final Order / Judgement
ORAL STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW APPEAL NO. 1528 OF 2009 (Against the order dated 16-05-2009 in Complaint Case No.266/2008 of the District Consumer Commission-II, Agra)
01.Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited Through Executive Engineer Urban Electricity Distribution Division (V) Shahganj, Agra
02.General Manager Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited Vidyut Bhawan, Galana Road, Agra.
...Appellants Vs. Smt. Deep Devi, W/o Mohan Lal R/o 19 Shakti Nagar Kedar Nagar, Shahganj, Agra ...Respondent BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR, PRESIDENT For the Appellant : Sri Isar Husain, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Sri Rahul Srivastava holding brief of Sri A K Mishra, Advocate. Dated : 21-11-2023 JUDGMENT MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR, PRESIDENT
The instant appeal is filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the judgment and order of the District Consumer Commission-II, Agra dated 16-05-2009 passed in Complaint Case No. 266/2008 Smt. Deep Devi V/s Executive Engineer, Electricity Urban Distribution Fifth, Agra and another whereby the District Consumer Commission has allowed complaint partially and passed the following order:-
"The complaint is allowed. Checking report dated 31-08-2006 is set aside and the opposite party is directed to return Rs.26,200/- the amount deposited by the complainant with the opposite party within 30 days from :2: the date of judgment or adjust in the bill. The opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as cost to the complainant within 30 days from the date of judgment. It also ordered that if the compliance is not made 9% interest on the whole amount shall also be payable from the date of judgment till the date of payment."
Feeling aggrieved with the judgment and order passed by the District Consumer Commission, the opposite party has come up in appeal.
The appeal is pending since last more than about 14 years.
I have heard Sri Isar Husain, Counsel for the appellants and Sri Rahul Srivastava holding brief of Sri A K Mishra, Counsel for the respondent and have also gone through the impugned judgment and order as well as record.
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant is the consumer of the opposite party and she had an electric connection of 3 KW. The complainant was paying the electricity bills regularly. The old meter was working correctly and its seal was alright. No abnormality was found during the checking. The opposite party was fully satisfied with the electric connection. No overloading was found in the complainant's electric connection. No electricity theft has been committed by the complainant bypassing the meter. The authorities of the opposite party have on the basis of wrong checking report made the assessment of Rs.26,200/- and have collected Rs.26,200/- as well as Rs.8,000/- as saman shulk from the complainant. The checking report has been prepared by the opposite party at the site and has taken the signature of complainant forcefully. No time has been given by the opposite party to the complainant for making objection. The checking report of 31-08-2006 is wrong and it is an exparte checking report. Broken of seal has been wrongly mentioned in the checking report. No check meter has been installed by the opposite party adjacent to the old meter. No independent witness has been taken by the opposite party. No lab report has been provided to the complainant. No show cause notice has been given to the :3: complainant. It is wrong to say that the meter has been tampered. The investigating team has no authority to check the meter.
The opposite party has contested the case before the learned District Consumer Commission and filed its written statement and denied the allegations made in the complaint.
After having considered the pleadings of parties as well as materials available on record the District Consumer Commission is of the view that the opposite party has committed deficiency in service and has passed order accordingly as mentioned above.
Learned Counsel for the appellant/opposite party has argued that the entire approach of the learned District Consumer Commission in passing the impugned judgment and order is erroneous and suffers from manifest error of fact and law both. The impugned judgment is result of misconception and is liable to be set aside.
It has been further argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the impugned judgment is not in accordance with the provisions of law and therefore impugned order is liable to be set aside.
Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that complaint against the assessment made by assessing officer under Section 126 or against the offences committed under Section 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act 2003 is not maintainable before a Consumer Forum.
It has been further argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant/opposite party that the judgment and order is perverse and is based on presumption, conjectures, guess, surmise and have been passed without application of judicial mind.
It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that there was no deficiency in service. There is no relationship between electric theft and deficiency in service. The respondent did approach the District Consumer Commission with clean hands and the respondent should not be allowed to take benefit of his own wrong.
:4:It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the respondent did not have any cause of action for consumer dispute and the basis of the complaint was totally misconceived and not maintainable. The entire procedure adopted by the learned District Consumer Commission is arbitrary, unwarranted, illegal and the impugned order passed is unreasoned and non speaking and is therefore liable to be set aside.
It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant/opposite party that no deficiency in service has been committed by the opposite party. The complaint has been filed for only harassing and to gain undue money from the appellant/opposite party. The learned District Consumer Commission has not properly appreciated the correct evidence which are on record and judgment was passed which is arbitrary in nature. The complainant has no right to file any complaint against the appellant/opposite party and therefore, the impugned judgment allowing the complaint against the appellant is wholly not maintainable is liable to be set aside.
It has been further contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the District Consumer Commission has proceeded in perfunctory manner without adverting to factual aspects of the matter and as such impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.
Learned Counsel for the respondent/complainant has argued that the order passed by the learned District Consumer Commission is perfectly correct and the learned District Consumer Commission has committed no illegality in passing the impugned judgment and order.
Learned Counsel for the respondent/complainant has further argued that the District Consumer Commission has jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the complaint and cause of action accrued to the complainant to file the complaint before the learned District Consumer Commission.
Learned Counsel for the respondent/complainant has argued that the learned District Consumer Commission has applied its judicial mind to all the facts, circumstances and evidence and on judicious :5: consideration of all the materials available on the record, passed the impugned judgment and order, which is perfectly legal and sustainable and allegations made by the appellant contrary to this are baseless and fit to be rejected and the appeal filed by the appellant is fit to be dismissed with exemplary cost to the complainant.
The learned District Consumer Commission while deciding the complaint has categorically recorded a finding of fact and has allowed the complaint partially. The relevant extract of the finding recorded by the learned District Consumer Commission reads as follows:-
"हमने पवत्रावली पर उपलब्ध साक्ष्यों का गहनता से अध्ययन किया। परिवादिनी के द्वारा उसी दिन शमन शुल्क व असेस्मेंट की धनराशि जमा की जिस दिन परिवादिनी के परिसर पर चैकिंग की गई थी। चैकिंग रिपोर्ट पर उपभोक्ता के हस्ताक्षर हैं। चैकिंग रिपोर्ट के अनुसार मीटर की बाडी की सील का टूटना बताया गया है। जबकि मीटर की सील टूटने पर विधिवत मीटर की जांच होनी चाहिए उसकी लैब रिपोर्ट तैयार होनी चाहिए तथा मीटर की लैब रिपोर्ट तैयार करते वक्त जिस समय मीटर खोला जा रहा है उस वक्त उपभोक्ता की मौजूदगी होनी चाहिए जैसा कि विद्युत अधिनियम, 2003 के प्रावधानों में दिया गया है, लेकिन विपक्षी ने अपनी इस प्रक्रिया को नहीं अपनाया तथा मात्र एक ही दिन में चैकिंग रिपोर्ट के आधार पर असेस्मेंट स्वेच्छा से बना दिया तथा चैकिंग के दिनांक 31.8.2006 की पूरा पैसा जमा करा लिया। परिवादिनी ने अपनी शिकायत विपक्षी के कार्यालय में भी की कि उसे जबरदस्ती पैसा जमा करा लिया गया है तथा उसका बिल सही नहीं बनाया गया है जबकि उसके द्वारा कोई चोरी नहीं की जा रही थी। विपक्षी ने परिवादिनी के उस पत्र का खण्डन नहीं किया है जो अधिशासी अभियंता उत्तरी विद्युत वितरण खण्ड पंचम को दिया गया। पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध अभिलेखों व साक्ष्यों के आधार पर यह स्पष्ट है कि विपक्षी ने परिवादिनी को चैकिंग रिपोर्ट पर आपत्ति व राजस्व निर्धारण कर आपत्ति प्रस्तुत करने का मौका नहीं दिया और न ही विपक्षी ने परिवादिनी के परिसर पर कोई मीटर लगाकर कि परिवादिनी कितनी विद्युत उपयोग कर रही थी तथा वह मीटर जिसकी सील टूटी बताई गई थी वह सही यूनिट बता रहा था या नहीं इस तथ्य की सही जानकारी करने का प्रयास नहीं किया गया।:6:
जबकि विपक्षी को अपने ही इन नियमों का पालन करना चाहिए था तथा अपने नियमों का पालन न करने परिवादिनी की सेवा में कमी की।
(2) विपक्षीने कहा कि परिवाद विद्युत अधिनियम, 2003 की धारा 145, 126 व 127 से बाधित है लेकिन विपक्षी के द्वारा इस सम्बन्ध में साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत नहीं किए गए हैं। परिवादिनी ने कहा कि मीटर की सील की टैम्प्रिंग को तब तक चोरी नहीं कहा जा सकता है जब तक कि यह सिद्ध न हो जाए कि मीटर की यूनिट उपभोग की जा रही बिजली को कम बता रही हो या उस मीटर के अंदर कोई ऐसा रसिस्टेंट पाया जाए जो मीटर पर असर डाले इस तरीके का कोई सबूत विपक्षी ने प्रस्तुत नहीं किया है अत: हमारी राय में विपक्षी धारा 145, 126 व 127 से विद्युत अधिनियम, 2003 का लाभ प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी नहीं है।
वादग्रस्त बिन्दु- 3 अब प्रश्न है कि परिवादिनी किस अनुतोष को प्राप्त करने की अधिकारिणी है ? वादग्रस्त बिन्दु 1 पर लिये गये निष्कर्षों के आधार पर चैकिंग रिपोर्ट दिनांकित 31.8.2006 निरस्त किए जाने योग्य है तथा विपक्षी परिवादिनी के परिसर पर अपना चैकिंग मीटर लगाकर उसमें पाई गई यूनिट के आधार पर परिवादिनी से बिल प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी है। साथ ही परिवादिनी रू.2,000/- परिवाद व्यय भी प्राप्त करने की अधिकारिणी हैं तथा अपनी असेस्मेंट की जमा धनराशि को भी प्राप्त करने की अधिकारिणी हैं इन्हीं निष्कर्षों के अधीन परिवाद स्वीकार किए जाने योग्य है।"
I have gone through the judgment and order passed by the learned District Consumer Commission and particularly the findings recorded by the learned District Consumer Commission which are in fact finding of fact which cannot be disputed at this stage in summary proceedings.
Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and after going through the material and evidence available on record and particularly the findings recorded by the learned District Consumer Commission, I am of the opinion that the order passed by the learned District Consumer Commission is fully justified and it cannot be said :7: to be wrong or illegal. Accordingly the same is confirmed and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
ORDER The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of the District Consumer Commission is confirmed. Any interim order passed by this Court is accordingly vacated.
If any amount is deposited by the appellant under Section-15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 in this appeal, it shall be remitted to the District Consumer Commission alongwith interest accrued if any, who shall pass appropriate order in accordance with law.
Let copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules.
The Stenographer is requested to upload this order on the website of this Commission at the earliest.
( JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR ) PRESIDENT Pnt.
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR] PRESIDENT