State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. vs Chohal on 13 March, 2024
Appeal No. Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. 13.03.2024
68 of 2019 and Anr.
Vs.
Sh. Chohal
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UTTARAKHAND, DEHRADUN
Date of Institution: 05.03.2019
Date of Final Hearing: 04.03.2024
Date of Pronouncement: 13.03.2024
First Appeal No. 68 / 2019
1. Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd.
Through its Executive Engineer
Electricity Distribution Division (Urban) Roorkee
District Haridwar
2. Executive Engineer
Electricity Distribution Division (Urban) Roorkee
District Haridwar
(Through: Smt. Shashi Yogeshwar, Advocate)
.....Appellants
VERSUS
Sh. Chohal S/o Sh. Mangu
R/o Village Govindpur, Wahidpur, Roorkee, District Haridwar
None for Respondent
Coram:
Ms. Kumkum Rani, President
Mr. B.S. Manral, Member
ORDER
(Per: Ms. Kumkum Rani, Judicial Member II):
This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been directed against the judgment and order dated 03.01.2019 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Haridwar (hereinafter to be referred as the District Commission) in consumer complaint No. 377 of 2014 styled as Sh. Chohal Vs. Executive Engineer, 1 Appeal No. Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. 13.03.2024 68 of 2019 and Anr.
Vs. Sh. Chohal Electricity Distribution Division (Urban) Roorkee, Haridwar, wherein and whereby the complaint was allowed by the District Commission.
2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal in hand, in brief, are as such that the complainant had taken a domestic electricity connection No. 6810709073110 of 1 KW. in the year 1995 and he was using the same and was paying the electricity bills per month. It is stated by the opposite party that the complainant has not paid the electricity charges of 177 months. The complainant has further stated that he could not pay the electricity charges for 177 months due to his sickness because he was mentally disturbed and there was no chance of his life. Further he has stated that the bill of electricity charges of 177 months is wrong, which needs to be rectified. The complainant has further stated that he has approached to the office of opposite party to rectify the same and get a receipt of Rs. 24,000/- vide receipt No. 049500 on dated 23.03.2011 from the office of opposite party in compliance of the above notice. Inspite of this, the opposite party has issued a bill of total outstanding amount to the tune of Rs. 46,959/-, even inspite of his payment. The opposite party has not given any satisfactory answer inspite of approaching the electricity department at several occasions, hence he has to submit a complaint before the District Commission.
3. The opposite party has submitted its written statement alleging that the facts of the complaint are wrong and imaginary; the complainant has accepted in his complaint that he has not paid the electricity charges of 177 months. The payment of Rs. 24,000/- on dated 23.03.2011 was paid to the Electricity Department for the electricity charges by showing the name of other consumer having connection No. 6810709/07384. The complaint has been submitted by the complainant in order to get undue benefit. The complainant has never paid any amount from 1994 to 2014 and now the 2 Appeal No. Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. 13.03.2024 68 of 2019 and Anr.
Vs. Sh. Chohal outstanding amount is to the tune of Rs. 1,27,064/-, which is required to be deposited by the complainant. Hence, on such account, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. The District Forum / Commission after taking into consideration the material available on record, passed the judgment and order dated 03.01.2019, whereby it is held as under:-
"ifjokn Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gSA foi{kh foHkkx dks vknsf"kr fd;k tkrk gS fd og vkns"k dh frfFk ls ,d ekg ds Hkhrj ifjoknh dks lgh la"kksf/kr fcy çLrqr djsa rkfd ifjoknh mldk Hkqxrku dj ldsa rFkk {kfriwfrZ ,oa okn O;; ds :i esa foi{kh vadu 2]000@&:0 dh /kujkf"k Hkh ifjoknh dks vnk djuk lqfuf"pr djsAa "
5. Having been aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Commission, the Electricity Department and its Executive Engineer have preferred the present appeal contending that the impugned judgment and order is perverse and against law and facts on record, therefore, it is liable to be set aside. It is also narrated in the appeal that the District Commission has failed to appreciate that the machinery has been provided under the Electricity Act, 2003 under Section 42(5) for redressal of electricity grievances and the electricity supplied to the consumer subject to the provisions of Electricity Act, 2003 and rules made thereunder and the consumer is bound to avail the said redressal machinery; as such the jurisdiction of the District Commission under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is barred in respect of the matter to which Section 42(5) is applicable. It is also further contended in the appeal that the alleged deposited amount of Rs. 24,000/- on dated 23.03.2011 was in respect of bill No. 17/049500 whereas the connection number of the respondent bears the connection 3 Appeal No. Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. 13.03.2024 68 of 2019 and Anr.
Vs. Sh. Chohal No. as 681/0709/073110 and while the connection No. 6810709/07384 is in the name of some other person by the name of 'Chohal Singh S/o Sh. Kantu R/o Govind Nagar' who had actually deposited Rs. 24,000/- under the surcharge waiver scheme and the respondent is illegally claiming the said deposit. The impugned judgment is based on surmises and is imaginary and is without any basis and not on actual facts. Therefore, the District Commission has neither applied its mind, nor has understood the real controversy on merits. Therefore, the impugned judgment is illegal, perverse and arbitrary and is liable to be set aside.
6. Respondent - complainant did not appear before the Commission on several dates, hence on dated 24.01.2024, an order was passed to proceed the appeal ex-parte against the respondent.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record.
8. As per the contents of the complaint, the complainant has averred that the payment of electricity charges vide receipt No. 10 Book No. 836557 dated 16.03.1994, receipt No. 15 Book No. 789385 dated 26.12.1995, receipt No. 39 Book No. 032705 dated 27.05.1996, receipt No. 13 Book No. 133173 dated 20.11.1996 and receipt No. 35 Book No. 808736 dated 30.03.1999 have been made, but the actual amount has not been mentioned in the complaint. In the appeal, the appellants - Electricity Department has stated that the payment of Rs. 380.70ps., 857/-, 75.10 and 242.20ps were paid, which was very low, for which the receipts have been produced in the District Commission. As per the contents of the complaint, the complainant has not alleged to have paid the electricity charges after 30.03.1999 till the date of filing of the complaint by producing relevant evidence and documents. In para No. 5, the complainant has also 4 Appeal No. Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. 13.03.2024 68 of 2019 and Anr.
Vs. Sh. Chohal admitted that ";g 177 ekg dk fcy blfy, bdVBk gks x;k gS fd ifjoknh chekj py jgk FkkA ftldk ekufld lary q u Hkh Bhd ugha Fkk] ftldh thfor jgus dh vk"kk Hkh lekIr gks pqdh FkhA". Thus, it is clearly proved that there was the huge outstanding amount towards the respondent - complainant of the appellants - department as per the version of the respondent - complainant.
9. The complainant has stated that he has paid Rs. 24,000/- on dated 23.03.2011 vide receipt No. 17 book No. 049500 about which it is stated in the written statement in para No. 13 that the complainant had deposited Rs. 24,000/- on dated 23.03.2011, which was deposited in the name of some other person whose connection number is 073084. In the memo of appeal, the electricity department has shown the name of such person as 'Sh. Chohal Singh S/o Sh. Kantu R/o Govind Nagar bearing connection No. 6810709/07384'.
10. If some payment was made in the name of Sh. Chohal Singh having different parentage, then it cannot be presumed that it was paid on behalf of the respondent - complainant.
11. After perusal of the entire record, it is transpired that the matter pertains to the payment of electricity charges between the appellants and the respondent.
12. Learned counsel for the appellants has stated that when the specific machinery has been provided under the Electricity Act, 2003 under Section 42(5) for redressal of electricity grievances. The electricity is supplied to the consumer subject to the provisions of Electricity Act, 2003 and rules made thereunder. The consumer is bound to avail the said redressal machinery. As such the jurisdiction of the District Commission under the 5 Appeal No. Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. 13.03.2024 68 of 2019 and Anr.
Vs. Sh. Chohal Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is barred, wherein in respect of the matters to which Section 42(5) is applicable.
13. We have perused the relevant provisions. The Electricity Act, 2003 is a Special Act and over rides the general law and under Section - 42(5) of the Uttarakhand Regulatory Commission (The Electricity Supply Code) 2007 published in official gazette on 17.04.2007. The Grievance Redressal Forum is a proper Forum for resolving the disputes in the matter relating to electricity and the present dispute by the said learned Forum should have referred the matter to the CGRF for decision. It is also to mention that the Electricity Act, 2003 is a Special Act and over rides the general law. The Section 181 read with Section 50 of the Electricity Act, 2003 have conferred power on the Regulatory Commission to frame regulations to carry out of the object and the Hon'ble Commission has framed Uttarakhand Regulatory Commission (The Electricity Supply Code) 2007 published in official gazette on 17.04.2007. By virtue of Section 42(5), the law has established in this act a Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum for resolving the dispute in the matter relating to electricity bills.
14. The matter in hand should also have been referred for decision to the CGRF and the complaint as per the provision should have been referred for decision to the CGRF and the complaint as per above provision should not be filed in the District Commission; it should actually be filed before the CGRF for rectification of the bills from the department. Accordingly, we are of the definite opinion that the complaint is not maintainable before the District Commission, Haridwar.
15. There was no deficiency on the part of the appellants and the District Commission has failed to appreciate the relevant provisions of law and has 6 Appeal No. Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. 13.03.2024 68 of 2019 and Anr.
Vs. Sh. Chohal not perused the facts and law properly and appropriately. Accordingly, we hold that the appeal is liable to be allowed.
16. Appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 03.01.2019 passed by the District Commission is hereby set aside. Consumer complaint shall stand as dismissed. No order as to costs of the appeal. The complainant is at liberty to submit his dispute, if any, before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum under Section 42(5). The complainant may also file fresh complaint / application for adjudication before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum within a period of three months from today.
17. Statutory amount(s) deposited by the appellants be returned to the appellants.
18. 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 record of the District Commission be returned to the concerned District Commission alongwith copy of this judgment for record and necessary information.
19. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Order.
(Ms. Kumkum Rani) President (Mr. B.S. Manral) Member Pronounced on: 13.03.2024 7