State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Piccadily Hotel Pvt. Ltd vs Sdo Electricity on 4 March, 2011
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH COMPLAINT CASE NO. 64 OF 2000 Piccadily Hotel Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.1078-85, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh through its authorized representative Anup Jamwal S/o Mr.K.M.Jamwal. . Complainant. Vs. 1. SDO Electricity, Op. Sub Divn. No.1, Sector 23, Chandigarh. 2. Executive Engineer, Electricity Op. Divn. No.1, Sector 17, Chandigarh. . Respondents. BEFORE: MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDING MEMBER
S.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER.
Present:
Sh.Bhupinder Ghai, Advocate for the complainant. Sh.Jatinder Singh, ADA for the OPs.
MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDING MEMBER
1. This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking quashing of the bills for consumption of electricity installed in the Hotel located in SCO No.1078-85, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that the complainant is having three electric connections bearing Account Nos.(1)101-2213/726413k (2) 101-2213/7263-G-1X & (3) 101-2213/726412-H and the bills in question (Annexures C-2 and C-3) relate to the account numbers shown at Item No.3 i.e. 2213/7726412-H. It is averred that the amounts involved in the two bills are for a sum of Rs.3,19,463/- and Rs.96,747/-, which were shown to be paid on 7.9.1998 for cash and 4.9.1998 by cheque. In this regard, OP No.2 also issued a Memo No.3586 dated 26.11.2998 to the complainant. The complainant has challenged these two bills on the ground that earlier the complainant had filed a complaint bearing No.36 of 1998 against the OP before this Commission, which was decided vide order dated 7.9.1999. When order dated 7.9.1999 was not complied with by the OPs, the complainant filed a petition u/s 27 of the Act before this Commission. During the pendency of the execution petition, a request was made by the complainant to the OP that the meters installed at the premises of the complainant were running fast and the same did not depict the actual consumption of the electricity, which resulted in issuance of the inflated bills. It is averred that the OP No.1 got these meters checked by the laboratory of the department and informed to the complainant vide Memo No.1934 dated 27.7.1998 that the meters installed were running fast @3.5%. It is next averred that the said contention of OP was, however, challenged by the complainant on the ground that the meter was running much faster than reported by OP No.1 and a request was also made for checking of the said meters from some other independent laboratory, which was not done. The OP No.1, as per the complainant, issued the two disputed bills on average basis and on average charges as the meters installed was running slow. It was alleged by the complainant that no details whatsoever were given by the OP as to who inspected the meters and got the same tested/checked. The complainant alleged that the bills on average basis cannot be issued without referring to the Meter Inspector, even if the meter is defective. As per the complainant, these two bills were not included in complaint case No.36 of 1998 and thus, the amounts of the disputed bills were not included by the Commission in its order dated 7.9.1999.
3. The OPs filed written statement pleading that all the details were already supplied to the complainant and the amount in dispute had also been kept in suspense as per the order of this Commission. It was next stated that the complainant had challenged only one electricity meter bearing Account No.101-2231/726413-K by depositing the requisite challenge fee vide receipt (Annexure R-1), which meter was replaced on 12.7.1998 vide meter change order dated 10.7.1998 (Annexure R-2). As per the OPs, the challenged meter No.CHP-1143 was sent to M&P laboratory for testing and it was found fast by 3.5% and the complainant was accordingly informed. It was asserted that on 28.8.1998, an inspection was done at the premises of the complainant wherein in the meters as well as load of the site was checked vide reports (Annexures R-3 and R-4). It was detected that the complainant was using excess load unauthorizedly for 250.880 IW against the sanctioned load of 199.800 KW and the meter bearing A/c No.101-2213/246413 was found running slow by 66.17% and the other meter bearing A/c No.101-2213/246412 was running slow by 14.2%. It was next asserted that the said checking was done in the presence of the representative of the complainant, who refused to sign the reports. As per the OPs, subsequent to this, both the accounts were overhauled and the two bills of short assessment, which are under challenge, were issued to the complainant vide Memo No.2220 dated 28.8.1998. It was also asserted that as the amounts were charged on the basis of fresh checking report, it had no relevancy with complaint No.36 of 1998. Pleading no deficiency in service on its part in issuing the two disputed bills, OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. Both the parties were given opportunity to lead evidence in support of their contentions.
5. At this stage, it is pertinent to mention here that this complaint had earlier been dismissed by this Commission vide order dated 31.12.2001 against which, the complainant went in appeal before the Honble National Commission, New Delhi by way of filing First Appeal No.77 of 2002. The Honble National Commission, New Delhi allowed the appeal vide its order dated 5.2.2009, set aside the order dated 31.12.2001 passed by this Commission and directed this Commission to decide it afresh after affording opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence in support of their pleas. The parties were directed to appear before this Commission on 5.3.2009, on which date the complainant filed its evidence and on the subsequent date i.e. 26.5.2009, OP also tendered its evidence. Evidence on behalf of both the parties was concluded keeping in view the directions of the Honble National Commission and also by affording sufficient opportunity to both the parties.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence on record.
7. This case has been remitted by the Honble National Commission with the direction to this Commission to decide it afresh after affording opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence in support of their pleas. Both the parties appeared before the State Commission on 5.3.2009 since the counsel for the parties were present on that date and the case was adjourned for 5.5.2009 for filing evidence. The complainant has filed affidavit of Sh.Girraj Parsad Sharma along with Annexure C-1 to C-5 whereas the OPs have filed an affidavit of Sh.Deepak Bansal, SDO Electricity along with Annexures R-1 to R-6. On 26.5.2009 Sh.Surinder Kumar, SDO Electricity has filed an affidavit along with exhibits OP-1 to OP-6.
8. At the time of arguments, the learned counsel for the complainant contended that the bill regarding the above said electric connections for Rs.3,19,463/- and Rs.94,747/- is not as per the consumption of the electricity since the above said bills were issued during the pendency of the complaint No.36 of 1998 and these bills indicate that the same were issued on the basis of average as the meters installed at the premises of the complainant were running slow but no details whatsoever have been given by the department as who and when inspected those meters and from where those were got tested/checked and to which period the bills relate. Therefore, these bills are totally illegal and without any basis, hence prayed that the bills Annexure C-2 and C-3 may kindly be quashed and the OPs may kindly be directed to refund the above stated amounts to the petitioner with suitable compensation, interest and costs of litigation.
9. The learned counsel for the OPs argued that there is no doubt that although the earlier complaint No. 36 of 1998 was pending at the time when these bills were issued to the complainant but these bills were issued after the inspection was carried out of the site of the complainant on 28.8.1998 by a checking party. It was further contended that at the time of checking, the OPs acted as per the rules of the department and the whole checking was carried out in the presence of representative of the complainant who refused to sign the report and remark to this effect was made on the report by the checking party. It was next averred that both the accounts were accordingly overhauled by the department correctly and the two bills of short assessment as worked out were rendered to the complainant vide Memo No.2220 dated 28.8.1998. It was next contended that the bills issued to the complainant are not on the average basis but are based on the actual consumption after the checking done by the checking party. Therefore, prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
10. There is no doubt that earlier complaint No.36 of 1998 pending at the time when these two bills were issued to the complainant on 28.8.1998 but the perusal of the file shows that these bills were issued by the OP after the checking/inspection which was carried out at the premises of the complainant on 28.8.1998 by the checking team comprising of three Sub Divisional Officers and there the checking team checked the meters with the Accucheck meter and found that the meter bearing A/c No.2213/726413 was running slow by 66.17% and meter bearing A/c No.2213/726412 was running slow by 14.2%. After the checking a checking report (Annexure R-3) was prepared by the officials of the checking party, which is placed on the file and as per the checking report, both the accounts pertaining to abovementioned meters were accordingly overhauled by the department and two bills of the short assessment as worked out were rendered to the complainant vide Memo No.2220 dated 28.8.1998. As per OPs that nothing wrong has been done by the OPs by issuing the above said bills to the complainant as the OPs have issued these bills after the inspection of the premises of the complainant and after following the due procedure. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the complainant draw our attention towards the checking report Annexure R-3 and pointed out that the checking of the premises was done on 28.8.1998 whereas one of the officials of the checking party has put a date one day prior to the date of the checking i.e. 27.8.1998 instead of 28.8.1998. From the perusal of the checking report Annexure R-3 shows that the officer incharge of the testing team has signed the said checking report on 28.8.1998, the date on which the checking was conducted but it appears that the other officer has inadvertently signed the same checking report one day prior i.e. 27.8.1998 instead of 28.8.1998. Thus mere by putting a wrong date by one of the official of the checking team does not make any difference. It is also proved that the challenged meter was already replaced on 12.7.1998 and the checking of the premises was conducted by the checking team on 28.8.1998 and respectively, the bills were raised by the OPs on the basis of the checking report dated 28.8.1998.
11. In view of the foregoing discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the OPs have rightly issued the bills to the complainant as per the checking report and these bills are not liable to be quashed and the bills are not liable to be refunded to the complainant. Therefore, we find no merit in this complaint, hence dismissed without any order as to costs.
12. Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
Pronounced.
4th March,
2011. Sd/- [NEENA SANDHU]
PRESIDING MEMBER
Sd/- [JAGROOP
SINGH MAHAL]
MEMBER
rb
COMPLAINT CASE NO. 64 OF 2000
Present:
Sh.Bhupinder Ghai, Advocate for the
complainant. Sh.Jatinder
Singh, ADA for the OP.
-.-
Vide our detailed order of even date recorded separately, the complaint has been dismissed.
4.3.2011 (PRESIDING MEMBER) (MEMBER) Rb/-