State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sdo Elecy P vs Brig.R.N.Sharma (Retd.) on 13 February, 2014
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. 290/2011 Date of Institution 20.10.2011 Date of Decision 13.02.2014 SDO Elecy OP Sub Division No.7, Sector 35, Chandigarh. .Appellant V E R S U S Brig.R.N.Sharma (Retd.) House No.1594, Sector 34-D, Chandigarh now deceased substituted by his LRs:- 1. Mrs.Subash Sharma, widow of Late Brig.R.N.Sharma 2. Mrs.Anita Bhattal married daughter of Late Brig.R.N.Sharma 3. Mrs.Meera Walia, married daughter of Late Brig.R.N.Sharma 4. Mr.Sandeep Dixxit, Married son of Late Brig.R.N.Sharma vide order dated 15.02.2012. ...Respondent(s) BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT SH.DEV RAJ, MEMBER
SMT.PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER Argued by:
Sh.Jatinder Singh, Govt. Pleader for the appellant.
Sh.V.P.Chatrath, Advocate for the respondents.
PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER This appeal is directed against the order dated 12.09.2011, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it partially allowed the complaint filed by the complainant-Brig. R.N.Sharma (now deceased) and directed Opposite Party No.1 (now appellant) as under:-
Hence, on the above observations, we partially allow the present complaint against OP-1 and direct OP-1 to calculate and recover from the CC only the amount against actual consumption of electricity for a period of last two preceding years from 21.12.2010 (Due Date of payment of last Bill). We also direct OP-1 to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation along with litigation cost of Rs.5000/- to CC.
This order be complied with by OP-1 within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which OP-1 shall be liable to pay an interest @9% p.a. on the total amount of compensation that stands against them after completion of 30 days, besides the cost of litigation.
However, it is made clear to the OP-1 that in case they have already received the amount in question from the CC, during the pendency of the present complaint, the same be adjusted accordingly and excess be paid back to the CC.
2. In brief, the facts of the case, are that the complainant namely Brig. R.N.Sharma, (now deceased) was an old consumer of Opposite Party No.1 vide A/c No.3407/159401A. The complainant rented out his residential accommodation, alongwith the said electricity connection to one Sh.K.C.Sharma (Opposite Party No.2 in the complaint, before the District Forum). Opposite Party No.2 remained in possession of the house for a long duration and was evicted, by virtue of the orders of the Rent Controller, U.T., Chandigarh on 13.12.2010. It was stated that all these years, the complainant believed that Opposite Party No.2, was paying the electricity bills regularly. However, on the date of taking possession of the premises, the complainant came to know of the electricity supply being disconnected. It was further stated that on making enquiries from Opposite Party No.1, the complainant was informed of disconnection of the electricity connection w.e.f. 11.12.2010, on the ground, that a sum of Rs.95,654/- was outstanding against him. It was further stated that no bill was issued to the complainant, for recovery of the said amount. However, a supplementary bill was handed over to him (Ann.C-4), dated 6.12.2010, showing an amount of Rs.91,702/- as arrears and another amount of Rs.3500/- approx. as energy charges, for the period from 04.11.2010 to 15.12.2010. It was further stated that the complainant requested for the restoration of electricity connection with immediate effect and sought waiver of the amount of Rs.95,654/- shown against the aforesaid connection, in his name, as the same could be recovered from Opposite Party No.2 by Opposite Party No.1. Opposite Party No.1, however, decined the request of the complainant regarding the waiver of amount, referred to above. It was further stated that, thus, Opposite Party No.1 was deficient, in rendering service, as also, indulged into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed.
3. In its written reply, Opposite Party No.1 stated that there were two electricity connections in the name of Brig.R.N.Sharma (Retd.), (now deceased) bearing Account No.3407/159400Y & 3407/159401A, with sanctioned load of 1.460 KW and 13.220 KW respectively.
It was further stated that, in the case of electricity connection bearing Account NO.3407/159401A, Meter No.CHEP-39373 was removed vide PDCO NO.69/670, dated 03.12.2010, effected on 15.12.2010, as the payment of electricity bills was not made by the complainant. It was further stated that, as a sum of Rs.95,654/- was outstanding against the electricity account No.3407/159401A, Opposite Party No.1, was well within its right to disconnect the same (electricity connection) due to non-payment and the same could not be reconnected till the complainant made the payment of outstanding amount. It was further stated that, the case of the complainant was pending with the Disputes Settlement Committee, and the same was decided on 25.11.2010. The complainant was informed about the same vide Memo No.5316, dated 09.12.2010. The complainant was asked to make the payment of outstanding amount, against him, failing which the electricity supply was disconnected and the meter too was removed. It was further stated that the complainant was drawing the electricity vide electricity meter bearing No.3407/159400Y at the existing site. It was further stated that, Opposite Party No.1 was not deficient, in rendering service.
4. Opposite Party No.2 was duly served but was not present. Accordingly, he was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 17.8.2011.
5. The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.
6. After hearing the Counsel for the complainant, Govt. Pleader for Opposite Party No.1, and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum, partially allowed the complaint qua Opposite Party No.1, as stated above.
7. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/Opposite Party No.1.
8. We have heard the Govt. Pleader for the appellant, Counsel for the respondents and have gone through the evidence, written arguments and entire records of the case, carefully.
9. It would be pertinent to mention here that during the pendency of the appeal, the complainant (Brig. (Retd.) R.N.Sharma) expired and vide order dated 15.02.2012 his LRs i.e. respondents No.1 to 4 as mentioned in the title of the appeal were substituted, in his place.
10. The appeal was adjourned sine die, vide order dated 06.12.2012 by this Commission, in view of the order dated 12.12.2011 passed by the Honble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.35906/2011 (CC 20407/2011) U.P.Power Corporation Ltd. and others Vs. Anis Ahmad, which reads as under:-
One of the questions which would require consideration in this petition is whether the Consumer Forums established under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaints filed in the matter of theft of electricity and the orders passed by the competent authorities under different provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 for recovery of the due of electricity.
Issue notice, returnable in 12 weeks. Dasti, in addition.
Since a large number of similar petitions are pending before various consumer fora, we deem it proper to request the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to defer consideration of similar issues raised in the pending matters. This would obviate the necessity of parties approaching this Court.
11. Now U.P.Power Corporation Ltd.s case (supra) has finally been decided by the Honble Supreme Court vide its order dated 01.07.2013. Consequently, the appeal was ordered to be revived vide order dated 10.01.2014.
12. The Govt. Pleader for the appellant, submitted that the District Forum wrongly interpreted the provisions of Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act,2003 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). He further submitted that the arrears of energy charges/dues have been continuously shown as recoverable in each electricity bill sent to the consumer. He placed reliance on the attested copies of the ledger sheet maintained by the officials, in the due discharge of their official duties, showing the arrears of energy charges, continuously in all the electricity bills of the consumer, which was annexed as Annexure OP-2 at page 125 of the District Forum file. Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act,2003 is reproduced as under:-
Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no sum due from any consumer, under this section shall be recoverable after the period of two years from the date when such sum became first due unless such sum has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrears of charges for electricity supplied and the licensee shall not cut off the supply of the electricity.
He further submitted that the District Forum wrongly observed that the arrears were not continuously shown in the duplicate bills because the same (duplicate bills) were issued to the respondent only once at his request for making full and final payment against A/c No.3407/159401A. He further submitted that in reply to the representation dated 08.02.2008 from Opposite Party No.2, the Dispute Settlement Committee (hereinafter referred to as DSC) in its meeting held on 24.07.2009 decided that no DMC tariff be charged w.e.f. 28.03.2006. A copy of the Minutes of the DSC meeting held on 24.07.09 was placed at Annexure A-2. He further submitted that the matter regarding disconnection of the electric supply of Opposite Party No.2, was put up before the Departmental Dispute Settlement Committee with Superintending Engineer Electricity, OP Circle, UT Chandigarh, as its Chairman. The matter was, thus, under consideration and when the DSC decided the case on 25.11.2010, after that a notice was issued to the complainant for making the payment as decided by the DSC, but due to the non-payment of dues the electric supply was disconnected on 15.12.2010 and the meter was removed. No free hand was given to Opposite Party No.2(tenant) due to the pendency of the case before the DSC. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum being illegal is liable to be set aside.
13. The Counsel for the respondents submitted that the appellant had not given any reasons as to why they did not disconnect the electricity supply to Opposite Party No.2 (tenant) despite a written request made by Brig.R.N.Sharma (Retd.) to do so on account of non-payment of the electricity bills by him vide his registered letter dated 25.09.2008, Ex.C-2 and postal receipt, Ex.C-3. He further submitted that the appellant was acting in league with Opposite Party No.2 against the interests of the respondents, in as much as that his electric supply was not cut off for so many years especially when the arrears were due from the year 2005. He further submitted that the electricity supply to the house was immediately cut off after the vacation of the premises by Opposite Party No.2, and that too without waiting even for the last date by which the bill was to be paid. The last date to pay the bill was 21.12.2010, whereas, the electric supply was cut off on 15.12.2010. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum being legal is liable to be upheld.
14. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, raised by the Govt. Pleader, for the appellant, the Counsel for the respondents and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be accepted, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. The appellant had taken a right step of removing the meter of the electricity connection bearing A/c No.3407/159401A with Meter No.CHEP-39373 vide PDCO No.69/670 effected on 15.12.2010 as the defaulting amount of Rs.95654/- related to the previous period charges. Also after the decision of the DSC was conveyed to the appellants office on 07.12.2010, the complainant was served a notice to make payment of the outstanding dues of the electricity bills, which included payment of current bills also. It may be observed here that the bill dated 06.12.2010 for 1472 units for the period from 04.09.2010 to 04.11.2010 was issued. The amount of the bill was not paid. Thereafter PDCO No.69/670, was issued and effected on 15.12.2010 with meter reading at 26217. A supplementary bill for 1143 units for reading 25074 to 26217 from 4.11.2010 to 15.12.2010 was issued on 24.12.2010. However, on the supplementary bill issue date was inadvertently mentioned as 06.12.2010. The bill issued on 06.12.2010 was upto the reading of 25074 and amounted to Rs.91,702/- whereas the bill for the period 04.11.2010 to 15.12.2010 was for Rs.95,654/- (including Rs.91,702/- of the bill dated 06.12.2010). Since on the supplementary bill aforesaid, date 06.12.2010 was inadvertently mentioned, by no stretch of imagination, it could be said that disconnection was effected before the last date stipulated for payment.
15. Further, the authenticity of the ledger sheets, which are supported by the affidavit of Er.Daleep Kumar, SDO, Electricity OP Sub Division No.7, Sector 35-B, UT, Chandigarh to the effect that the arrears of energy charges, used to be shown continuously in all the electricity bills of the consumer, cannot be doubted in any manner because the same were prepared by the officials of the appellant, in the due discharge of their official duties. Otherwise also, Er.Daleep Kumar aforesaid, in his affidavit, specifically deposed that the detail of energy charges of old electricity bills, had been prepared on the basis of ledger entries, which constituted a permanent record of the Electricity Department. He further stated the ledger sheets continuously showed the arrears of electricity charges, from 04.11.2004 to 04.03.2011, and the same were prepared on the basis of the official record. He further specifically stated in his affidavit, that the duplicate bills were not generated/retained by the Department, and only the ledger consisting of all the details of electricity bills of each and every consumer, is maintained by the Department.
The ledger sheets produced by the appellant cannot be discarded without any cogent reason. We are of the view that the District Forum wrongly interpreted the provisions of Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, as outstanding dues towards electricity supply, were continuously shown recoverable in the ledger sheets, which were duly maintained by the officials of the appellant in the discharge of their official duties and, as such, the appellant was right in raising the demand of Rs.95654/-. It will not be out of place to mention here that the said connection was in the name of Late Brig. R.N.Sharma (Retd.) and, as such, he being the consumer and after his death, his legal heirs were legally liable to pay the same, to the appellant irrespective of the fact that the premises in which the same (connection) was installed were earlier occupied by the tenant namely Sh.K.C.Sharma and later on he vacated the same without paying the electricity dues either to the concerned Department, or to the respondents. The District Forum failed to take into consideration the aforesaid aspects of case. Had the District Forum, appreciated the facts, circumstance and evidence, on record, in its proper perspective, it would not have fallen into an error in holding that the outstanding arrears pertained to the period of more than six years and hence their demand was not in consonance with Section 56(2) of the Act ibid. The order of the District Forum, thus, being, illegal and perverse, is liable to be set aside. Opposite Party No.1/appellant, was not deficiency in disconnecting the electric connection, in question, on account of non-payment of the outstanding energy charges against the aforesaid electric connection by the consumer.
16. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is accepted, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is set aside, and the complaint is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
17. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
18. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Pronounced.
13.02.2014 sd/-
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER [RETD.] PRESIDENT Sd/- [DEV RAJ] MEMBER Sd/-
[PADMA PANDEY] MEMBER cmg APPEAL No. 290/2011 Argued by:
Sh.Jatinder Singh, Govt. Pleader for the appellant.
Sh.V.P.Chatrath, Advocate for the respondents.
Dated ____ February, 2014
-.-
Vide our detailed order of the even date recorded separately, the appeal is accepted, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is set aside and the complaint is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
[DEV RAJ] MEMBER [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD)] PRESIDENT [PADMA PANDEY] MEMBER cmg