National Consumer Disputes Redressal
1. Chairman & Ors. vs Mahendra Singh on 11 October, 2013
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2000 OF 2013 WITH (I.A. NO. 3298 OF 2013, For Stay) (Against the order dated 08.02.2013 in Appeal No.1314/2012 of the State Commission, Rajasthan) 1. Chairman Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Vidyut Bhawan, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan 2. Executive Engineer Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Ltd. District - Karauli, Rajasthan 3. Assistant Engineer Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Ltd. District - Karauli, Rajasthan ....... Petitioners Versus Mahendra Singh S/o Shri Rich Pal Singh R/o Jeetkipur, Tehsil Nandoti District Karauli Rajasthan ... Respondent BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. REKHA GUPTA, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajatshatru Mina, Advocate Pronounced on : 11th October, 2013 ORDER
PER MR. JUSTICE V.B.GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER Present revision petition has been filed by the Petitioner/OPs under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, Act) for setting aside order dated 8.2.2013, passed by Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (short, State Commission.
2. Brief facts are that Respondent/Complainant filed a complaint stating that he has SIP connection No.15020093 of 10 HP for which he was paying bill regularly. Previously, a Meter No.6366217 was installed and on the basis of reading, an amount of Rs.4,317/- was deposited on 1.1.2010 and a new meter was installed on 1.1.2010 which was already used and it reflected a meter reading of 24000 units. A bill was sent to him showing reading of 24617 units on 24.2.2010 and it showed previous reading as 8712. Thus, a bill for 15905 units was preponed showing the old meter number 6366217. Consequently, bill for Rs.64,377/- was sent. This act of petitioners show that the bill was prepared without application of mind. Thus, respondent has prayed for the cancellation of the incorrect bill and to award compensation of Rs.45,000/-.
3. Petitioners in their reply have admitted Meter No.176540 has been installed. It has been further stated that respondent has consumed all the units mentioned in the electricity bill. However, petitioners have also fairly conceded that the wrong bill was issued to the respondent due to human error as there were two different connections arising from one sub-station. Therefore, the meter reader inadvertently interchanged the units consumed by the consumer and accordingly, the incorrect electricity bill was issued.
However, after receiving the complaint, petitioner issued correct bill after reducing 5957 units from the impugned electricity bill. Thereafter, meter reader again recorded the reading of 20448 units on 26.5.2010 in the presence of the respondent after taking his signatures. However, to verify the fact, a report was sought by Asst. Engineer from the Junior Engineer. Accordingly, the Junior Engineer conducted a report found that the electric meter was functioning properly. Thus, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner.
4. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karauli Camp Hindaun City (for short, District Forum), vide order dated 22.5.2010, allowed the complaint and ordered that ;
The complaint of the complainant has been partly allowed and it is ordered that bill dated 4.3.2010 of Rs.64,377/- in account No. SIP 15020093 is cancelled that it is ordered to issue amended bill on average basis, considering the usage of previous one year.
It is ordered to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the complainant as compensation for mental and physical harassment and Rs.5,000/- is ordered to be paid for prosecution expenses. The complainant is entitled to pay 9% interest if failed to pay, within two months.
5. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission, which dismissed the same vide impugned order.
6. Hence, this revision petition.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record of the case.
8. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that State Commission has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner without assigning any reason thereof and therefore, it has violated the basic principle of law by dismissing the appeal and the plea raised by the petitioner has not been dealt with. As such, impugned order is liable to be set aside.
9. District Forum, while allowing the complaint held ;
5. The non-complainant has admitted to issue the bill on 4.3.2010 of 15905 consumed units and on the complaint by the complainant, an amended bill was issued reducing 5957 units.
6. The non-complainant has admitted to change the meter on 1.1.2010 and it has shown nil unit but no documents have been presented to show that what was the reading at the time of installation. Non-complainant has also submitted a unit chart consumed by the complainant in which at any time from 2007 to 2010, there was no consumption more than 1033 units while the bill in question was sent of 18660 units.
7. A meter reading of 20448 has been shown by the meter reader on 28.5.2010 while at the time of inspection by Junior Engineer was 20704 unit. It is clear that the consumption of the complainant in 22 days is 256 units while the bill of two months is of 18660 units which cannot be justified and authentic.
8. A notice has been sent by Asst. Engineer to the meter reader but it seems that the signatures are being made by another person or employee and this notice has neither dispatched by putting dispatch number nor any date has been mentioned. There is no date under the signature and as such, there is no action against the meter reader.
9. On the basis of observations made, it is clear that non-complainant has committed acted negligently and without application of mind, issued the bill dated 4.3.2010 which comes in deficiency of service and on this basis the bill issued on this basis the bill issued on 4.3.2010 is liable to be cancelled and complainant is entitles to get the compensation.
10. Petitioner in response to para 4 of the complaint has made following averments ;
That the contents of para 4 of the complaint are based on incorrect and fictitious facts. It is admitted that the meter No. 176540 has been installed but the fact of already consumed units is false and fictitious. It is humbly submitted that complainant consumed all the units mentioned in the electricity bill. However, it is fairly conceded that the wrong bill was issued to the consumer due to human error as there were two connections arising out of one sub-station. Therefore, the meter inadvertently interchanged the units consumed by the consumer and accordingly, the incorrect electricity bill was issued. However, the non-complainants right after receiving the complaint, issued the correct bill after reducing the 5957 units from the impugned electricity bill. Thereafter, meter reader again recorded the reading of 20448 units on 26.5.2010 in the presence of the complainant after taking his signatures. To verify the fact, a report was sought by A.En. Nadauti from the Junior Engineer. Accordingly, the Junior Engineer conducted a report found that the electric meter is functioning properly.
11. Thus, as per defence of the petitioners themselves, wrong bill has been issued to the respondent due to human error as there were two connections arising out of one sub-station and the meter reader, therefore, inadvertently interchanged the units consumed by the consumer. Accordingly, incorrect electricity bill was issued. Petitioner has nowhere mentioned what was the wrong bill and what are the numbers of two connections and which meter reader had inadvertently interchanged the units consumed by the respondent. Petitioners have made absolutely vague averments and it does not lead us anywhere.
12. Though, it is correct that State Commission has not given any reason in its impugned order but nevertheless we after going through the entire record are unable to reach at any conclusion as on what basis, respondent issued the rectified bill.
13. Thus, no jurisdictional or legal error has been shown to us to call for interference in the exercise of powers under Section 21 (b) of Act. The present revision petition has no legal basis and consequently, it is hereby, dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only).
13. Petitioner is directed to deposit the cost of Rs.5,000/-, by way of demand draft in the name of Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission, within four weeks from today. In case, petitioners fail to deposit the said cost within the prescribed period, then they shall also be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a., till realization.
14. Pending applications also stand dismissed.
15. List on 29.11.2013 for compliance.
.....J (V.B. GUPTA) PRESIDING MEMBER ....
(REKHA GUPTA) MEMBER Sg/St