State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Asstt Executive Engineer, Electricity ... vs Jagdeep Singh Bhasin on 31 December, 2018
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH Appeal No. 228 of 2018 Date of Institution 30.08.2018 Date of Decision 31.12.2018 Asstt. Executive Engineer, Electricity OP Sub Division No.8, Manimajra, Chandigarh, U.T. Superintending Engineer, Electricity, OP Circle, Secretariat Building, 5th Floor, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh. SDO OP Sub Division No.8, Manimajra, Chandigarh, U.T. .....Appellants/Opposite Parties. Versus Jagdeep Singh Bhasin S/o Late Sh. Avtar Singh Bhasin, r/o Flat No.5133/1, Modern Housing Complex, Manimajra, Chandigarh. ....Respondent/Complainant. BEFORE: MRS. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER
MR.RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER Argued by:
Sh. Manu Kakkar, Government Pleader for the applicants/appellants.
Sh. Abhaysher Singh, Advocate for the respondent.
PER PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER This appeal is directed against the order dated 09.02.2018, rendered by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (in short 'the Forum' only), vide which, it allowed Consumer Complaint bearing No.746 of 2017, which reads thus :-
"14] In view of the above settled position of law as well as facts & circumstances of the present complaint, as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, the recovery made by the OPs from the complainant is totally illegal and unjustified. The complainant has not only been forced to pay illegally, but had been harassment mentally & physically with additional burden of the present litigation. The deficiency in service and unfair practice on the part of the Opposite Parties is writ large. Accordingly, the present complaint is allowed against the Opposite Parties with following directions:-
[a] To refund an amount of Rs.2300/- wrongly charged from the complainant;
[b] To pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- as compensation to the complainant causing him mental & physical harassment on account of deficient service as well as unfair practice resorted to by Opposite Parties;
[c] To pay an amount of Rs.7000/- as litigation expenses.
This order shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the OPs shall be liable to pay additional compensation cost of Rs.10000/- apart from above relief."
2. The Forum noted down the following facts narrated by the complainant :-
" Briefly stated, the complainant is residing at Flat No.5133/1, Modern Housing Complex, Manimajra, Chandigarh since last 16 years. It is averred that on 1.8.2017, the complainant received a letter from OPs (Ann.C-1) intimating him that his electricity connection A/C No.MA65/513310X has been disconnected due to non-payment of electricity bill/dues amounting to Rs.2300/- which is outstanding till date. The complainant represented to the Opposite Parties vide letter dated 10.8.2017 (Ann.C-2) to know as to how the said amount was outstanding. Accordingly, the OPs issued an electricity bill of Rs.26200/- dated 22.8.2017 to the complainant for the period from 21.5.2017 to 21.7.2017 (Ann.C-3), which reflected Rs.2300/- as Sundry Charges, which was earlier claimed as outstanding (Ann.C-4). It is also averred that the OPs vide letter dated 1.9.2017 (Ann.C-5) replied that the meter bearing A/C No.208/MA65/513310X was running in the name of Sh.Pardeep Handa and was transferred in the name of complainant Sh.Jagdeep Singh Bhasin in the year 2011 and at the time of transfer, the amount of Rs.2300/- was outstanding, which was also transferred in the account of the complainant. It is submitted that no transfer is made until & unless all outstanding dues are cleared/paid and moreover, the complainant is residing in the said flat since 2001 and has never defaulted in making the payment of electricity bills. It is also submitted that the OPs have wrongly made said demand from the complainant in order to extract Rs.2300/- which is not due from him. Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging the said act of the OPs as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice."
3. The Forum noted down the following facts narrated by the Opposite Parties to the complaint filed by the complainant :-
"2] The OPs have filed joint reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that electricity Meter A/C No.508/MA65/513310X was installed at the premises in question Flat No.5133/1, Modern Housing Complex, Manimajra, Chandigarh in the name of Sh.Pardeep Handa in the year 1997 and then on 26.9.2011, the complainant had made an application for transfer of the meter in his name on the basis of change in ownership of the premises and accordingly, the previous connection was disconnected and new connection was issued in the name of complainant on 14.10.2011. It is also stated that the amount demanded is not on account of any default in payment of bi-monthly electricity charges, rather the same is difference in tariff revision w.e.f. 1.4.2011 to 15.7.2011. Denying other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint."
4. The parties led evidence, in support of their case.
5. After hearing Counsel for the complainant, Sh. Ashok Gautam, Govt. Pleader for the Opposite Parties and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the Forum, allowed the complaint, as stated above.
6. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellants/Opposite Parties.
7. We have heard Sh.Manu Kakkar, Govt. Pleader for the appellants/Opposite Parties, Counsel for the respondent/complainant, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.
8. Govt. Pleader for the appellants/Opposite Parties has submitted that the Forum had ignored the factual aspects of the matter i.e. self admission of the respondent/complainant in para No.1 of the complaint, in which, it was averred that he is residing at Flat No.5133/1, Modern Housing Complex, Manimajra, Chandigarh since last 16 years ; self admission of the respondent/complainant in letter dated 10.08.2017 (Annexure C-2) that he is owner of the aforesaid house from the year 2001 and copy of the transfer letter dated 03.03.2008 issued by Chandigarh Housing Board by virtue of which, flat No.5133/1 of HIG - I Category in Modern Housing Complex, Manimajra, Chandigarh was transferred in the name of the respondent/complainant. He further submitted that it is clear that non else rather the respondent/complainant was the one, who was using the electricity from the electric connection installed at flat No.5133/1 of HIG-I Category in Modern Housing Complex, Manimajra, Chandigarh. He further submitted that the respondent/complainant failed to approach the Forum with clean hands as the flat, in question, was transferred in his name on 03.03.2008 by the Chandigarh Housing Board vide letter No.HB-AO/SO/SA-/2006/3559. He further submitted that despite the fact that the Chandigarh Housing Board transferred the flat in the name of the respondent/complainant, he continued to enjoy the electricity from the electric meter having account in the name of Sh.Pardeep Handa. He failed to get it transferred in his name. He further submitted that the Forum has not taken into consideration that the amount of Rs.2300/- was an amount regarding outcome of revision in tariff, which were revised w.e.f. 01.04.2011 by the Hon'ble Joint Electricity Regulatory Commission in terms of Commercial Instruction No.20 dated 04.11.2011. He further submitted that the complainant made an application for seeking change in the name in respect of electricity connection on 26.09.2011 and new account number was issued to him with the same electricity connection on 14.10.2011, however, he had intentionally not disclosed that the premises, in question, was transferred in his name by the Chandigarh Housing Board on 03.03.2008. Therefore, it cannot be said that he was not the actual consumer during the period 01.04.2011 to 15.07.2011, for which, a demand of Rs.2300/- was raised and that too on account of revised tariff charges with retrospective effect from 01.04.2011. He further submitted that the amount of Rs.2300/- towards difference in tariff charges was rightly calculated and revised for payment by the respondent/complainant. He prayed for allowing the appeal and setting aside the order passed by the Forum.
9. On the other hand, Counsel for the respondent/complainant submitted that the Forum has rightly passed the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of the appeal filed by the Opposite Parties.
10. After going through the evidence and record of the case, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be allowed, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter.
11. The core question that falls for consideration before us is as to whether the Forum has rightly passed the impugned order. The answer, to this, question is in the negative. A perusal of the facts of the case shows that Flat No.5133/1, Modern Housing Complex, Manimajra, Chandigarh owned by Sh. Pardeep Handa was given an electricity connection bearing account No.208MA65/513310X in the year 1997. Further, Sh. Jagdeep Singh Bhasin, respondent/complainant moved an application on 26.09.2011 (subsequent owner of the house) and after completion of the formalities, the electricity connection was transferred in the name of the respondent/complainant on 14.10.2011 and a new account No.208 MA65/5133A1Y was allotted. On 04.11.2011, the Superintendent Engineer, Electricity, UT, Chandigarh had issued commercial instruction No.20, vide which, Executive Engineer of Electricity 'OP' Division No.1,2,3,4 and A.O. (U.T.) were informed about the revision of tariff schedule w.e.f. 01.04.2011 (Annexure R-1). In the instant case, it was decided to implement the tariff w.e.f. 01.04.2011 and the arrears for the period from 01.04.2011 to 15.07.2011 would be recovered in instalments to avoid unnecessary burden on the consumers. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.1934/- became due qua electricity connection with respect to flat No.5133/1, Modern Housing Complex, Manimajra, Chandigarh in terms of revision of tariff ibid, which were raised in the bill pertaining the period from 21.11.2011 to 21.01.2012 and issued on 20.02.2012. When the ledger of the Electricity Department was scrutinized by the audit in the year 2017, arrears of tariff against 09 consumers including the respondent/complainant was observed. Accordingly, vide memo No.PDCO/2016/3117 dated 01.08.2017, the demand of Rs.2300/- (Rs.1934/- + surcharge of Rs.366/-) was raised. With respect to flat No.5133/1, Modern Housing Complex, Manimajra, Chandigarh, it is clear that vide memo dated 10.08.2017 (Annexure C-2), highlighting therein that he is owner of the flat, in question, since 2001. He had sought details and factual position with respect to the amount of Rs.2300/-. To the above query, the appellant had sent a reply vide memo No.3609 dated 01.09.2017 highlighting therein the details of the aforesaid amount of Rs.2300/-. Feeling not satisfied with the said reply, the respondent/complainant had filed Consumer Complaint bearing No.746 of 2017 before the Forum, who vide order dated 09.02.2018 ordered the appellant to refund an amount of Rs.2300/- besides payment of Rs.20,000/- towards compensation and Rs.7000/- towards litigation expenses, failing which, the appellants shall be liable to pay additional compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/-, apart from the aforesaid relief. To this, the appellants had transferred an amount of Rs.27,000/- i.e. compensation + litigation expenses to the account of the respondent/complainant and Rs.2300/- was also transferred in the Electricity account of the respondent/complainant. In other words, the appellants had fully complied with the order of the Forum, in order to avoid additional compensation of Rs.10,000/- to be paid.
12. The respondent/complainant vide letter placed at Annexure C-2 has admitted himself that he is residing in the said premises i.e. House No.5133/1 of Modern Housing Complex, Manimajra, Chandigarh from the year 2001 and has been receiving bills regularly to the said address, against which, payments were also being made to the Electricity Department. Further, vide additional documents placed on record by the appellants, the flat, in question, was transferred legally in his name on 03.03.2008 by the Chandigarh Housing Board vide letter No.HB-AO/SO/SA/2006/3559. It is also very clear from the fact that though the dewelling unit was transferred in the name of the respondent/complainant on 03.03.2008, he had applied for a change in the name of the electricity consumer only in the year 2011. Despite the fact that Chandigarh Housing Board had already transferred his flat in the name of the respondent/complainant, he continued to enjoy the electricity from the electric meter having account in the name of Sh.Pardeep Handa till the year 2011. He did not get it transferred after the house was transferred in his name. Looking the issue from any angle, it is very clear that the respondent/complainant was the owner of the said dwelling unit No.5133/1 in Modern Housing Complex, Manimajra, Chandigarh and he was a consumer of the Electricity Department consuming energy and paying bills, which was generated at his residential address. If the Electricity Department had overlooked charging of revised tariff and that was detected during their department's audit, it is not the concern of the consumer to take a plea that it should not have been charged since a long time has lapsed. Being consumer of the electricity from an authorised meter connection, the respondent/complainant is liable to pay the arrears, which was duly payable by him but it was omitted by the Electricity Department due to oversight. We find no fault on the part of the appellant/Electricity Department. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Forum is liable to be set aside.
13. In view of above, the appeal filed by the Opposite Parties is allowed and the impugned order passed by the Forum is set aside. The complaint is dismissed. The respondent/complainant is directed :-
To refund the amount of Rs.27,000/- i.e. compensation plus litigation charges to the appellants/Opposite Parties, as the same was already paid by the Opposite Parties vide Composite Financial Accounting System Chandigarh Administration vide receipt dated 18.05.2018, within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which, this amount would carry interest @10% p.a. Besides an amount of Rs.2300/- towards the excess tariff charges charged by the Electricity Department to the respondent /complainant has already been transferred to the Electricity account belonging to the respondent/complainant, which is directed to be reversed by the Asstt. Executive Engineer, Electricity OP Sub Division No.8, Manimajra, UT, Chandigarh and the same be charged in the next billing cycle of the respondent/complainant.
14. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
15. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Pronounced.
December 31st, 2018.
(PADMA PANDEY) PRESIDING MEMBER (RAJESH K. ARYA) MEMBER rb STATE COMMISSION APPEAL No. 228 of 2018 (Asstt. Executive Engineer Vs. Jagdeep Singh Bhasin) Argued by:
Sh. Manu Kakkar, Government Pleader for the applicants/appellants.
Sh. Abhaysher Singh, Advocate for the respondent.
Dated the 31st day of December, 2018 Alongwith the appeal, an application for condonation of delay of 104 days as per the applicants/appellant s (as per the office report 99 days), in filing the appeal, has been filed.
Reply to the application was filed by the respondent/complainant Heard Counsel for the parties on the application aforesaid.
After going through the facts mentioned in the application as well as in the reply, we are of the opinion that sufficient reasons are mentioned in the application to condone the delay.
In view of above, the application is allowed and the delay aforesaid is condoned.
The application is disposed of accordingly.
Another application for placing on record additional evidence i.e. letter bearing No.HB-AO/SO/SA-/2006/3559 of Chandigarh Housing Board and affidavit of Engineer Balbir Singh, Assistant Executive Engineer, Electricity OP Sub Division No.8, Manimajra, UT has been filed by the applicants/appellants.
Reply to the application was filed by the respondent/complainant.
After going through the document(s), we are of the opinion that the said document(s) are necessary for the just decision of the case.
In view of above, the application is allowed and the document(s) aforesaid are taken on record.
Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.
Vide our detailed order of the even date, recorded separately, the appeal has been allowed and the impugned order is set aside.
(PADMA PANDEY) PRESIDING MEMBER (RAJESH K. ARYA) MEMBER rb