State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ghamandi Singh vs Sub-Divisional Officer & Others on 4 November, 2011
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
UTTARAKHAND, DEHRADUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 110/2009
Shri Ghamandi Singh
S/o Shri Bishamber Singh
R/o Village Bhalswagaj, Pargana Bhagwanpur
Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar
......Appellant/Complainant
Versus
1. Sub-Divisional Officer
Electricity Sub Division
Bhagwanpur, Roorkee, Haridwar
2. Executive Engineer
Designated Authority
Electricity Distribution Khand
Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd.
Roorkee, District Haridwar
3. Chief Engineer
Electricity Distribution Khand
Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd.
Dehradun
......Respondents/Opposite Parties
Mr. Deepak Ahluwalia, Learned Counsel for the Appellant
Mr. S.M. Jain, Learned Counsel for the Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.C. Kandpal, President
Mr. C.C. Pant, Member
Mrs. Kusumlata Sharma, Member
Dated: 04/11/2011
ORDER
(Per: Mr. C.C. Pant, Member):
This appeal is directed against the order dated 28.05.2009 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Haridwar dismissing the Consumer Complaint No. 82/2008.2
2. The facts of the case in brief are that the complainant Shri Ghamandi Singh has an electricity connection taken from the Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. (for short "Corporation") for domestic purpose. He received a notice/letter dated 19.04.2007 (Paper No. 45) issued by the Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Sub-division, Bhagwanpur, Roorkee, District Haridwar - opposite party no. 2 asking him to deposit an amount of Rs. 44,538/- against the outstanding dues within 30 days from the receipt of the notice. According to the complainant, he received the said notice on 02.12.2007. The complainant has expressed his ignorance as to how and why the said demand notice has been sent to him inspite of the fact that he has been depositing the electricity bills regularly and there are no outstanding dues against him. The complainant sent a registered notice to the opposite parties through his counsel requesting therein to withdraw the notice, but the opposite parties did not take any action. This led the complainant to file a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Forum, Haridwar. The District Consumer Forum, after an appreciation of the facts of the case, dismissed the consumer complaint. Aggrieved by the order passed by the District Consumer Forum, the complainant has filed this appeal.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the District Consumer Forum has erred by holding that the consumer complaint is not maintainable before the District Consumer Forum due to the provision under Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the respondents had not conducted any raid in the appellant's house, where the electricity connection no. 1932/046179 is installed. The inspection report dated 21.12.2004 (Paper No. 36), which was submitted by the respondents 3 before the District Consumer Forum, is a fabricated and manipulated document and its falsehood is apparent from the fact that the respondents did not initiate any action against the appellant under the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003. He also challenged the findings of the District Consumer Forum that the inspecting team of Corporation had taken away the wiring and fittings of the shop to which unauthorised supply of power by the appellant is being alleged by the respondents. The learned counsel submitted that no such averment has been made by the respondent no. 2 in the affidavit dated 05.08.2008. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel referred to the report submitted by the Advocate Commissioner, wherein it is stated that there is no electrical fittings in the said shops which are situated at a distance of 200 meters from the appellant's house. The supply of electricity to these shops in an unauthorised manner using a cable is impracticable because the shops are 200 meters away from the appellant's house. The learned counsel also submitted that the District Consumer Forum has erred by not relying on the affidavits filed by four persons, the neighbours of the appellant, wherein they have stated that there is no electricity connection or fittings in these shops of the appellant and the appellant has never supplied electricity to these shops from his domestic electricity connection and also that there are no outstanding dues of electricity against the appellant. Thus, the learned counsel for the appellant argued that the findings of the District Consumer Forum are without any basis and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the raid was conducted by the officials of the Corporation in the residential house of the appellant on 21.12.2004 and it was found that the appellant had been supplying electricity to three shops. However, the appellant had refused to sign the inspection report. On the basis of 4 this inspection, assessment of electricity dues was made under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and accordingly the appellant was asked to deposit an amount of Rs. 41,408/- vide letter dated 12.04.2005 (Paper No. 35). If the appellant had any objection, he should have filed it before the assessing officer. Further, there is a provision under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 to file an appeal against the final order, within thirty days of the said order, made under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The learned counsel for the appellant also referred to the provisions of Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003 which reads as under:-
"145. Civil Court not to have jurisdiction.-No Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which an assessing officer referred to in section 126 or an appellate authority referred to in section 127 or the adjudicating officer appointed under this Act is empowered by or under this Act to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act."
6. Thus, the District Consumer Forum has rightly held that the complaint is not maintainable under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
7. The findings of the District Consumer Forum has no legal error and the District Consumer Forum has rightly dismissed the complaint after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case.
8. We considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. At the very outset, we would like to say that the District Consumer Forum has passed a well reasoned order and has considered 5 each and every point of the case. Like the District Consumer Forum, we are also of the view that the appellant/complainant has made a mesh of the facts in the complaint to create a confusion. From the perusal of the complaint, it appears that the appellant was not aware as to how and why a demand notice dated 19.04.2007 for Rs. 44,538/- was sent to him by the respondents. It was only after the respondents
- opposite parties submitted before the District Consumer Forum that the appellant was assessed provisionally under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 on the basis of the findings of the raid conducted on 21.12.2004 in appellant's house, the appellant could know the reason of sending the said notice. If it was so, the appellant should have confined his grievance against the said demand and there was no reason to state the fact that he has no electricity connection for the shops, which are situated at a distance of 200 meters away from his house. During the raid by the Corporation's officials in appellant's house, it was found that appellant was supplying electricity to three shops in an unauthorised manner. If the appellant was quite unaware of the fact that the demand was created on the basis of this raid, then there appears no reason to give an explanation in the consumer complaint that the shops are 200 meters away from the appellant's house and there is no electricity connection in these three shops. This shows that the appellant was well aware of the fact that the demand notice sent to him is the result of raid conducted on 21.12.2004 by the officials of Corporation. After the raid, the Corporation had assessed him provisionally for Rs. 41,408/- (Paper No. 36) and the appellant was informed accordingly vide letter dated 12.04.2005 (Paper No. 35) asking him to deposit a sum of Rs. 41,408/-. This letter is duly numbered and despatched by the office of the respondent no. 2. Therefore, we cannot believe that the appellant had not received it. So far as the report of the Advocate Commissioner is concerned, it has not much relevance because the Advocate Commissioner has made 6 the enquiry after about four years from the date of the raid conducted by the respondents. At the time of raid, the supply of electricity was being made to three shops while the Advocate Commissioner found that out of six shops, only two shops were running, one with the job of air filling and the other one as a clinic. The report also says that two shops are permanently closed. But the report is quite ambiguous in respect of the other two shops. This shows that the Advocate Commissioner did not take much pain in conducting the enquiry regarding the previous occupants of the shops and their profession, as to how the occupants, previous and present, were running their business without electricity and also whether the occupants in 2004, when the raid was conducted, were running a tailoring shop, motor binding shop and a hair dresser's shop. Thus, the report of Advocate Commissioner is incomplete in itself.
9. After considering the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that the complainant, while narrating the facts in his consumer complaint, has pretended as if he was unaware about the basis of the demand raised by the respondents, but the complainant has exposed himself in the consumer complaint by making a mention of the shops and emphasizing that the shops had no electricity connection. This is apparently an "odd" among the facts of the case related with appellant's domestic electricity connection for his residential house and it shows that the appellant was fully aware of the fact that the demand was a result of the raid dated 21.12.2004, when he was found supplying electricity to these three shops in an unauthorised manner. Further, the appellant-complainant has also tried to confuse and mislead the District Consumer Forum by making a mention of the electricity connection no. 682/1932/023660 allegedly in the name of appellant's brother Shri Roop Singh. If the electricity connection is in the name of appellant's brother, then there was no 7 need to make it a part of the consumer complaint. Interestingly, the complainant has stated in the consumer complaint that the said electricity connection no. 682/1932/023660 is in the name of his brother Shri Roop Singh, but in appellant's letter dated 10.05.2007 (Paper No. 46) addressed to Executive Engineer, E.D.D., Roorkee, he has stated that-
"..... çkFkhZx.k dk viuk ?kjsyw dusDlu gS ftldh la[;k&682@1932@023660 gS viuk le; ls fcy tek djrs vk jgs gSa gekjk nqdkuksa esa dksbZ dusDlu ugha gS vkSj u gh ge ogk¡ fctyh dk iz;ksx djrs gS...
a .....g0@& ¼?ke.Mh flag½"
10. Thus, the appellant has shown in his letter that the electricity connection no. 682/1932/023660 is in his name. For all these reasons, the District Consumer Forum has inferred that the complainant has not narrated the facts of the case correctly and truly. We also agree to it. Regarding the maintainability of the consumer complaint, we also endorse the view taken by the District Consumer Forum, that Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003 bars the complainant from filing a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Forum. Otherwise, also conducting a raid is not a deficiency in service, assessing the consumer under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is not a deficiency in service and accordingly sending a demand notice for the assessed amount is also not a deficiency in service. Therefore, the present dispute being not a consumer dispute, cannot be entertained by the District Consumer Forum. Thus, this appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
11. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is dismissed. The order impugned dated 28.05.2009 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Haridwar is confirmed. No order as to cost.
(MRS. KUSUMLATA SHARMA) (C.C. PANT) (JUSTICE B.C. KANDPAL) 8 25-10-11 The appeal is allowed. The order impugned dated 12.07.2006 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar is set aside. The consumer complaint no. 120/2003 is allowed and the respondent is directed to cancel the electricity bill dated 05.06.2003 for Rs. 4,86,243/- and also to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- to the appellant towards cost of litigation within a month from the date of the order.