State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Smt. Krishna Chaudhary. vs H.P. State Electricity Board Ltd. & Ors. on 19 April, 2022
H. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION SHIMLA.
First Appeal No. 351/2019
Date of Presentation 22.11.2019
Order Reserved on 26.02.2022
Date of Order: 19.04.2022
......
Krishna Chaudhary w/o Sh. Ramesh Chaudhary R/O Hotel Ravi
View Dalhousie, Tehsil Dalhousie, District Chamba, H.P.
through Special Power of Attorney holder Sh. Harish Chaudhary
son of Sh. Ramesh Chaudhary R/o Hotel Ravi View Dalhousie
Tehsil Dalhousie District Chamba, H.P.
...... Appellant/Complainant
Versus
1. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited through its
Superintending Engineer, Electrical, Dalhousie, District
Chamba, HP.
2. Executive Engineer, Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board
Limited, Electrical, Sub Division HPSEB Ltd., Dalhousie,
District Chamba, HP.
3. Assistant Engineer, Electrical, Himachal Pradesh State
Electricity Board Limited, Sub Division HPSEB Ltd.,
Dalhousie, District Chamba, HP.
......Respondents/opposite parties
Coram
Hon'ble Justice Inder Singh Mehta, President.
Hon'ble Ms. Sunita Sharma, Member.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For Appellant : Mr. P.P. Chauhan, Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr. Anil Kumar God, Advocate.
Justice Inder Singh Mehta
ORDER
Instant appeal is arising from order dated 14.11.2019 passed by the learned District Forum, Chamba, in Consumer 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? Krishna Chaudhary Versus Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. & Ors. F.A. No.351/2019 Complaint No.47/2018 titled Krishna Chaudhary Versus Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. & Ors The complaint has been filed through Special Power of Attorney Sh.Harish Chaudhary.
Brief facts of Case:
2. The Complainant, Krishna Chaudhary, is owner of hotel "Ravi View" situated at Dalhousie, District Chamba, HP. The complainant had taken two power supply connections bearing No.12250225 and 1231100164 to her hotel from the opposite parties. The complainant's case is that the opposite party No.3, Assistant Engineer, Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board, Sub Division Dalhousie, issued to her letter/notice dated 23.7.2018, informing that a surprise inspection of her hotel premises had been carried out by the department and it had been found that actual power consumption of account No.231100164 had not been billed by the meter reader and there was huge difference of 111967 KWs units, of power actually consumed by the complainant, but not accounted, for the purposes of the charges, and thus opposite party No.3 had demanded a sum of Rs.6,17,835/-, being the actual charges of the consumption of electricity allegedly consumed by her. The said notice was replied by the complainant on 04.08.2018. On 20.08.2018, the opposite party No.3 issued detail of CMRI from 01.12.2017 to 01.08.2018, which was on higher side. The complainant has alleged that the 2 Krishna Chaudhary Versus Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. & Ors. F.A. No.351/2019 inspection was not carried out in her presence by the opposite parties and further she requested for checking of meter, but she was not informed when it was checked. The complainant further alleged that bill dated 31.08.2018 amounting to Rs.6,36,190.63 paise was illegal and same be issued as per average consumption of electricity for the last two years. The complainant further prayed that the letter dated 23.07.2018 and bill No. 150000071636 dated 15.08.2018 be issued as per average meter reading of the last two years.
3. The opposite parties, Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited have resisted the complainant of complainant and pleaded that they have appointed outsourced Meter Reader who had recorded wrong meter reading of meter No. 1231100164. In reply to para No.5 of the complaint on merits, the opposite parties have pleaded that the electricity meter No. 1231100164 was of three phase and is feeding the commercial units of hotel consisting 17 double bed rooms, two family suits plus other office reception complex. The opposite parties further pleaded that surprise inspection of the aforesaid meter of the complainant was conducted by the FSU- II ( Flying Squad Unit -II), under the provisions and they found that there is difference of 111967 kilowatt units of electricity energy in respect of meter No. 1231100164 and opposite party No.3 had issued letter dated 23.7.2018 to pay a sum of Rs.6,17,835/- being the consumption charges of electricity. The 3 Krishna Chaudhary Versus Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. & Ors. F.A. No.351/2019 opposite parties further pleaded that the electricity meter, on representation of the complainant, was checked and was found correct, and ,therefore, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
4. The Learned District Forum below dismissed the consumer complaint filed by complainant.
5. The appellant aggrieved from the said order filed the instant appeal on the ground.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that as per complaint, facts and evidence on record, the complainant is a "consumer" and the findings given by District Forum below is wrong. The counsel of the appellant has further submitted that the respondents installed two electricity meters. The two electricity meters ipso facto constitutes and binds the respondents to consider the appellant as a consumer.
7. The Learned counsel of the appellant has further submitted that there are two electricity meters installed in the premises and the premises consisting of 19 rooms. The bill raised of electricity connection No.1231100164 is inflicted one, as stated in the complaint. The counsel of the appellant submitted that the bill should have been issued on the same basis as before June, 2018.
8. Learned counsel of the respondents has submitted that appeal deserved to be dismissed as learned District Commission has given speaking order and does not require any interference. Learned counsel of the respondents has further 4 Krishna Chaudhary Versus Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. & Ors. F.A. No.351/2019 submitted that bill issued on the earlier occasions were not correct as per factual position. Flying Squad of the opposite parties detected the mistake and brought to the notice about mistake committed. Therefore, the appellant does not deserve any leniency, for the purposes for which the appeal is filed. FINDINGS
9. The dispute between the parties has arisen after receiving Notice/letter Annexure C-24 dated 23.07.2018, by the complainant from the opposite party No.3 Notice/letter Annexure C-24 is reproduced as under:-
"To Smt. Krishna Chaudhary C/0 Hotel Ravi View Dalhousie Tehsil Dalhousie District Chamba Subject: Surprise inspection of electricity consumer premises by FS-ii Shimla conducted on 28.05.2018.
It is brought to the notice of undersigned that energy meter installed in your premises bearing K. No. 1231100164 was wrongly billed by meter reader. The billed unit is not matching with the actual reading on the energy meter. There is a huge difference between the two. You have paid the energy bills up to 22243 KWh (units) but the reading on the energy meter is 134260 KWh (units) and 111967 ( units ) are still remained You are therefore hereby advised to deposit the total amount for remaining consumption amounting to Rs. 617835/- (SOP Rs.
571032/- Rs.45683/- ET Rs.1120/-) only within 15 days of issue of this letter detail of which has been appended below otherwise supply to your premises will be disconnected without any further notice."
10 The complainant in her complaint as well as in rejoinder did not dispute that the meter K. No. 1231100164 was installed in the hotel premises. As per Notice/ letter Annexure C-24, the electricity meter was installed in a hotel, which is a commercial place. Therefore, the appellant has to be charged on the basis of commercial rate. Consequently, the complaint of 5 Krishna Chaudhary Versus Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. & Ors. F.A. No.351/2019 the complainant ceases to attract the provisions of domestic charges.
11 The relief sought by the complainant in her complaint that the bill notice Annexure C-24 issued to her be quashed being excessive and the impugned bill be issued as per average basis of the consumption for the last two years, is without any substance.
12. As per Annexure R-1, the Surprise Inspection of Electricity conducted by the Er R.C. Sharma, accompanied by Assistant Engineer, Junior Engineer and other line staff of concerned area, various short coming / irregularities noticed during the course of inspection. The short coming shown in the inspection against the complainant's hotel is as under:-
SR Name & Meter Make Reading Status of seals Account No. No. &capacity (KWh/ KVAH No. of the consumer 10 Hotel Ravi 05316122 L &T 263131& MCB +Without seal View Krishna 3p-4p 264378 MTC =without Devi 10-60 717868 cover A20/2061110/c MD reset+ without seal M& T Prov 11 Hotel Ravi 1250225 L &T 134260 MTC = poly seal View 3p-4p & 137868 MD reset = without Krishna Devi 10-60 seal A/No. M& T = Prov 1231100164 "Further, from the bills being issued to the consumer at Serial No.11, it was noticed that actual reading are not being taken and billed accordingly. The reading at site were 134260 KWH and 137868 KVAH and reading as per bill for the month of 05/2018 is 22293 Kwh and billed for 100 units only. The same was brought in the notice of consumer representative and Manager and verified A/W ER Vikash J.E. and Sh. Vijay Kumar ALM. The total units 111968 Kwh were remained unbilled on the day of inspection. The representative of consumer/ manager refused to sign on the inspection register. The TOD data of meter supplied by AEEE also confirms the same. The meter be got looked into / investigated and the account of consumer be overhauled for the total consumption 6 Krishna Chaudhary Versus Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. & Ors.F.A. No.351/2019
and the amount so charged and realized be intimated to the office."
13. The opposite parties in Annexure R-1, which is Surprise Inspection Report has specifically mentioned that during the surprise checking, bills being issued to the consumer at Serial No.11, was not found to be billed as per actual consumption of electricity. It has further been mentioned in the report that the reading at site were 134260 KWh and 137868 KWh and reading as per bill for the month of 05/2018 is 22293 Kwh and this fact was brought in the notice of consumer representative and Manager but they refused to sign on the inspection register. The total units of 111968 Kwh were remained unbilled on the day of inspection.
14. The opposite parties in their reply which is supported with affidavit has specifically pleaded in reply to para No.5 of the complaint on merits, that the meter is of three phase and is feeding the commercial units of hotel consisting 17 double bed rooms, two family suits plus other office reception complex. The complainant has admitted this fact in para No.5(iii) of rejoinder.
15. It is not the case of the complainant that the meter reading of electricity connection No.1231100164 shown in notice Annexure C-24, was not the same on the date of inspection. However, we see no reason to disbelieve the Surprise inspection report of the opposite parties especially when prepared by a Government Servant, in the discharge of 7 Krishna Chaudhary Versus Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. & Ors. F.A. No.351/2019 their Government duty and also taking into consideration the fact that the that hotel of the complainant was consisting of 17 double bed rooms, two family suits plus other office reception complex.
16. Therefore, we do not find any infirmities in the impugned order passed by the ld. District Forum Chamba holding that the complainant is not a "consumer" under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and on merits also there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
17. Consequently, the order of ld. District Forum Chamba dated 14.11.2019 is upheld. The appeal of the appellant fails. No order as to costs.
18. Certified copy of this order be sent to the District Forum below and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion. Certified copy of order be sent to the parties strictly as per rules. Pending application(s), if any, also disposed of.
Justice Inder Singh Mehta President Sunita Sharma Member 19.04.2022 *DKM* 8