State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Executive Engineer, Electricity ... vs Smt. Renu Dolly Upadhyay ( Advocate) on 12 May, 2023
Appeal No. Executive Engineer 12.05.2023
90 of 2021 U.P.C.L and Ors.
Vs.
Smt. Renu Doli Upadhyay
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND, DEHRADUN
Date of Institution: 15.02.2022
Date of Final Hearing: 12.04.2023
Date of Pronouncement: 12.05.2023
First Appeal No. 90 / 2021
1. Executive Engineer
Electricity Distribution Division, Jwalapur
Tehsil and District Haridwar
2. Lineman
Jagjeetpur Area, Electricity Distribution Division,
Kankhal, Tehsil and District Haridwar
3. J.E. Kankhal
Electricity Distribution Division,
Kankhal, Tehsil and District Haridwar
(Through: Sh. Nitin Kumar Garg, Advocate)
.....Appellants
VERSUS
Smt. Renu Doli Upadhyay (Adv.) W/o Sh. Rajendra Singh Negi
R/o Raja Garden, Jagjeetpur,
Thana Kankhal, District Haridwar
......Respondent in person
Coram:
Ms. Kumkum Rani, Judicial Member II
Mr. B.S. Manral, Member
ORDER
(Per: Ms. Kumkum Rani, Judicial Member II):
This appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 10.12.2020 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Haridwar (hereinafter to be referred as the District Commission) in 1 Appeal No. Executive Engineer 12.05.2023 90 of 2021 U.P.C.L and Ors.
Vs. Smt. Renu Doli Upadhyay consumer complaint No. 91 of 2019 styled as Smt. Renu Doli Upadhyay Vs. Lineman (Jamalpur Area) Electricity Department, Kankhal, Haridwar and others, wherein and whereby the complaint was allowed.
2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in brief, are as such that respondent - complainant had applied on dated 13.12.2018 for a new electricity connection for her residential house situated at A-8, Lakki Vihar, Jamalpur and the registration number was allotted from the Electricity Division, Kankhal. After roaming several times at the opposite parties' office situated at Electricity Division of Kankhal, the concerned department has not replied satisfactorily. The complainant has paid fees on dated 07.02.2019 to the tune of Rs. 2,200/- to the electricity department for installing of new electricity connection. On dated 09.02.2019, the lineman / electricity employee came to the spot having the meter only, but he has not brought cable for installing a new connection; he directed the complainant to pay the amount to bring the new cable for installing the new electricity connection whereas the complainant has already paid the fees / charges of new cable for new connection. When the complainant has told that he has already paid the fees and why they are abusing her; they stated that the complainant is foolish, had the complainant given Rs. 15,000/-, then new connection would have been installed within a day. But now the department would not install her new connection. The said complaint was lodged in the office of District Magistrate. After several complaints, the new connection was installed on dated 03.03.2019. On account of negligence and deficiency on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has to suffer mental and physical agony and had to pay rent @ Rs. 6,500/- per month, therefore, the complaint be allowed awarding four months rent @ 6,500/- per month and compensation of Rs. 4,50,000/- alongwith Rs. 20,000/- towards costs of litigation.
2 Appeal No. Executive Engineer 12.05.2023
90 of 2021 U.P.C.L and Ors.
Vs.
Smt. Renu Doli Upadhyay
3. In the written statement, the opposite parties have stated that the complainant has sought two reliefs which are entertainable in two different courts, hence both the reliefs cannot be clubbed in one complaint, therefore, the complaint is liable to be rejected. It is further averred that the complainant has lodged her complaint before CGRF (Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum) and the judgment has been passed by such Forum. In case, if the complainant was aggrieved with the judgment passed by the CGRF then she should file her appeal before the competent Forum against the judgment of CGRF. It is incorrect to say that the lineman has demanded Rs. 15,000/- for the cable. The matter does not come within the purview of unfair trade practice; there was no deficiency in service on the part of the answering opposite parties, therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. After hearing both the parties and after perusing the record, the learned District Commission passed the impugned judgment on 10.12.2020 wherein it is held as under:-
"ifjokn Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gSA foi{khx.k dks vknsf"kr fd;k tkrk gS fd osa vkns"k dh frfFk ls ,d ekg ds Hkhrj ifjokfnuh dks 6]500@&:0 çfrekg dh nj ls 4 ekg dk fdjk;k eqc0&26]000@&:0 vnk djus ds lkFk&lkFk vadu 50]000@&:0 dh /kujkf"k ifjokfnuh dks {kfriwfrZ ,oa okn&O;; vkfn ds :i esa Hkqxrku djuk lqfuf"pr djsaA"
5. On having been aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellants - electricity department alleging that the impugned judgment is not a speaking order and it is wholly illegal, arbitrary and without any provisions of law. It is further averred 3 Appeal No. Executive Engineer 12.05.2023 90 of 2021 U.P.C.L and Ors.
Vs. Smt. Renu Doli Upadhyay that the complaint was lodged before the CGRF which has already been decided. If the consumer is aggrieved by the judgment of the CGRF then the appeal is maintainable before the Ombudsman of Electricity Department. It is further averred that the complainant has not filed any cogent and reliable evidence, which could show that who was her land lord and what was the rate of rent per month. It is further averred in the memo of appeal that the CGRF has imposed a penalty to the tune of Rs. 1,087.80ps. to the appellants and the appellant No. 1 - opposite party No. 1 (Department) cannot be punished twice for the same offence by two different Forums. Therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and the appeal be allowed.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as respondent in person and perused the material available on record.
7. From the pleadings as well as the contention raised in the appeal, it is crystal clear that the new electricity connection has already been installed within the residential building of the complainant. It is also admitted in the contents of para No. 8 of the complaint that the complainant has already lodged a complaint before the CGRF. In the written statement, it is specifically averred by the appellants - opposite parties that the complaint filed before CGRF on behalf of the complainant had already been decided. Complainant had never filed any application or rebuttal evidence denying the above contention pleaded in the written statement of the appellants that the complainant never filed any such complaint before the CGRF.
8. In the memo of appeal, the appellants have specifically / clearly averred in para No. 6 of the memo of appeal that the complainant has already lodged a complaint before the CGRF which was decided on 13.03.2019 and the penalty to the tune of Rs. 1,087.80ps. was imposed by the CGRF against the appellant. It is true that if one Forum has imposed the 4 Appeal No. Executive Engineer 12.05.2023 90 of 2021 U.P.C.L and Ors.
Vs. Smt. Renu Doli Upadhyay penalty for the negligence on the part of the appellants, then the appellants cannot be again punished for the same act in different Forum / Commission. It is also established principal of law that if the complaint is decided by the CGRF, then its appeal is maintainable before the Ombudsman if the aggrieved party is not satisfied with the finding of the judgment passed by the CGRF. The complainant who has personally appeared before the Commission has not rebutted the contention during the course of arguments that she never filed any such complaint before the CGRF and judgment was not passed by such CGRF on dated 13.03.2019.
9. A perusal of the pleadings of the complaint has shown that the new electricity connection had already been installed in the residential premises of the complainant and any grievance accrued during its installation has been disposed of by the CGRF. As per the pleadings, the complainant was not consumer hence the matter does not come within the purview of unfair trade practice, therefore, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellants.
10. Apart from it, the complainant has sought two reliefs, one for awarding the rent @ 6,500/- of three months and second relief is to pay compensation to the complainant for mental agony and financial loss alongwith cost of litigation. We are of the opinion that the complainant has not produced any such reliable and cogent evidence in regard to who was her owner of the rented property where she resided on rent for the period of four months. The rent receipt issued by the Nagar Palika / Nagar Nigam or competent authority has not been submitted on record on behalf of the complainant mentioning where the rented property was situated. Apart from it, it is to be mentioned that such relief (relief A of the complaint) is of civil nature which is maintainable only in civil court not before the consumer Commission.
5 Appeal No. Executive Engineer 12.05.2023
90 of 2021 U.P.C.L and Ors.
Vs.
Smt. Renu Doli Upadhyay
11. Thus, we are of the view that the impugned judgment passed by the District Commission is not in accordance with law. The District Commission has exceeded its jurisdiction which was vested in it and passed the impugned judgment with illegality and irregularity, therefore, we are inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment.
12. We are of the considered view that the District Commission has failed to appreciate the relevant provisions of law and has not appropriately and properly considered the facts and law. Accordingly, we hold that the appeal is liable to be allowed.
13. Appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 10.12.2020 passed by the District Commission, Haridwar is set aside and the consumer complaint shall stand as dismissed. No order as to costs of the appeal.
14. Statutory amount deposited by the appellants, if any, be released in favour of the appellants.
15. A copy of this Order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 /2019. The Order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties. The copy of this order alongwith original record of the District Commission be sent to the concerned District Commission for record and necessary information.
16. File be consigned to the record room alongwith copy of this Order.
(Ms. Kumkum Rani) Judicial Member II (Mr. B.S. Manral) Member Pronounced on: 12.05.2023 6