State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. vs Arjun Singh on 9 February, 2018
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UTTARAKHAND, DEHRADUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 176 / 2014
1. Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd.
Through its Executive Engineer,
Electricity Distribution Division (Urban) Haridwar
2. Executive Engineer
Electricity Distribution Division (Urban) Haridwar
......Appellants / Opposite Party
Versus
Sh. Arjun Singh S/o Sh. Anand Singh Chauhan
R/o House No. 52, Gosain Gali, Bheemgoda, Haridwar
......Respondent / Complainant
Sh. S.M. Jain, Learned Counsel for the Appellants
Respondent in person
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.S. Verma, President
Mrs. Veena Sharma, Member
Dated: 09/02/2018
ORDER
(Per: Mrs. Veena Sharma, Member):
This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been preferred by the appellants-opposite party against the order dated
02.08.2014 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 444 of 2013, whereby the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the Electricity Department to issue electricity bills to the complainant on the basis of average and accordingly receive the payment from the complainant with one month from the date of order. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs. 1.00 lac to the complainant towards damages and to deposit Rs. 5.00 lac with the District Forum. If the payment of Rs. 1.00 lac is not possible, then the opposite party shall adjust the same in the pending bills, but the amount of Rs. 5.00 lac should be deposited with the District Forum. It is further directed that the complainant shall apply for the transfer of connection in his 2 name within 15 days from the date of order and the Department shall indorse the proceedings for transfer of connection by the next 15 days.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case, as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant-Sh. Arjun Singh has a domestic electricity connection No. 023362 of 2KW in his residence. According to the complainant, initially the bill was used to come for Rs. 200/- to Rs. 300/- and later on Rs. 400/- to Rs. 500/-. He never received a bill more than Rs. 700/-. In the month of July - August, 2012, he got a bill of Rs. 577/- and after this bill, another bill of Rs. 55,909/- was issued against the connection No. 023362. He made a complaint against this bill, but after two months a bill of Rs. 79,560/- was issued for the said two months' period. Receiving the bills of such huge amount, the complainant and his family became tensed. On 23.01.2013, he wrote a complaint letter to the Electricity Department and stated that it seems that electricity meter is defected and shows incorrect readings. The opposite party has not taken any action on his complaint and again a bill of Rs. 81,791/- dated 31.03.2013 was issued to the said connection. Aggrieved by this, the complainant has filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar and prayed to release the bills according to the average of old meter readings.
3. The opposite party has filed the written statement before the District Forum and has pleaded that the complainant has filed a consumer complaint on false and frivolous grounds. The said electricity connection was issued in the name of Sh. Dayananad Pandey. The complainant has not taken any steps to transfer the said electricity connection in his name. So the complainant has no right to file a consumer complaint, as he is not a consumer of the answering opposite party. On the request of complainant, a check meter was installed on 02.11.2013 in the premises of complainant, in which reading was "Zero" and the reading of old meter was 34026. On 02.012.2013, the check meter was installed and finalized and the old meter was found 0.91% slow, which is within the permissible limits. No defect in the meter was found and it was showing correct reading. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering opposite party.
34. The District Forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, has allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 02.08.2014 in the above manner. Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party has filed the present appeal.
5. We have heard Sh. S.M. Jain, learned counsel for the appellants and respondent in person and have gone through the record of the District Forum and also perused the documents filed on record.
6. In the appeal learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the District Forum has wrongly awarded a sum of Rs. 1.00 lac as damages to be paid to the respondent and a sum of Rs. 5.00 lacs as fine to be deposed in the Forum, without any reason and the said amounts awarded are excessive exorbitant and wholly illegal and arbitrary and without any basis. The Forum has wrongly directed for preparation of bill on average basis in respect of the bills till the date of complaint. The said order is against the Regulations frames under Uttarakhand Regulatory Commission Supply Code 2007. The supply of electricity is exclusively governed by the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Regulations framed by the UERC from time to time. The Forum below has failed to appreciate that on 02.11.2013 a check meter was installed in which the reading was Zero and the reading of the old meter was 34026. On 02.12.2013, the check meter was found 0.91% slow, which is within the permissible limits. No defect in the meter was found and it was giving correct reading. The appellant has never accepted the respondent as consumer. Hence unless one of them takes the responsibility of paying the bills and fulfilling other obligations, he does not become consumer. The statue provides for mutation of the name of the legal heir, for the applicant has to comply with the legal formalities and deposit security. The Forum below has wrongly treat the respondent as consumer, without the application being made on the prescribed form by him and complying all other formalities prescribed in the Regulations. Merely, if the respondent has deposited the bill amount, it does not mean that he has been accepted as consumer, by the appellant. The finding is perverse. The respondent has no right to sign and verify and present the consumer complaint before the Forum. The complaint is a statutory complaint and cannot 4 be signed by anybody except the consumer. The Forum below has wrongly held that if the connection is not transferred in the name of respondent that it is only technical fault and if the respondent asked to make payment of the bills then it will amount to exploitation of the respondent. The Forum below has failed to appreciate that in the bill for the period from 17.11.2013 to 26.12.2013, the arrears of Rs. 77,058/- are shown as arrears of previous years. Besides arrears of current year Rs. 15,327/- and after adding the surcharge of total amount of the arrears is Rs. 1,04,259/- as per said bill. The respondent has not furnished proof of payment of the past bills and has failed to explain how the arrears are standing in his name, if he has paid the amount. The Forum below has failed to appreciate that the issuing a bill for full units consumed by the respondent is not a deficiency in service. The deficiency in service does not mean that the respondent is released of his liability to pay for the energy consumed by him as per the readings in the meter. There is no provision for making bill on average basis of the new meter under the Regulations framed by URRC. The electricity is governed by the regulations framed by the UERC alone.
7. The disputed bill for which the complainant-respondent has filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum is in the name of Sh. Dayanand Pandey. In the affidavit, the Executive Engineer, UPCL has stated that the electricity connection is in the name of Sh. Dayanand Pandey and the respondent- complainant has never mutated the said electricity connection in his name. So the respondent is not the consumer of the Electricity Department and has no right to file the consumer complaint for the said electricity connection.
8. Section 2(d)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 also supports the contentions of the appellants-Electricity Department that the respondent is not a consumer of the Electricity Department.
9. Section 2(d)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 read as under:-
2(d) "consumer" means any person who--
(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes 5 any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose;
10. In view of the aforesaid reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the respondent-complainant is not a consumer and the consumer complaint is not maintainable on his behalf, unless his name is mutated in place of Sh. Dayanand Pandey. The District Forum has not properly considered the facts and circumstances of the case and has erred in allowing the consumer complaint per impugned order, which cannot legally be sustained and is liable to be set aside. Consequently, the appeal is fit to be allowed.
11. For the reasons aforesaid, appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 02.08.2014 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar is set aside and the consumer complaint No. 444 of 2013 is dismissed. No order as to costs. Amount deposited by the appellants be released in appellants' favour.
(MRS. VEENA SHARMA) (JUSTICE B.S. VERMA)