State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Secretary, Hpseb Limited & Ors. vs Kashmir Singh Guleria & Anr. on 6 October, 2014
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
SHIMLA.
First Appeal No.244/2014
Date of Presentation: 08.07.2014
Date of Decision: 06.10.2014
..................................................................................
(1) The Secretary,
Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited,
Vidyut Bhawan, Shimla-171 004.
(2) The Chief Engineer,
HPSEBL Mandi, District Mandi, H.P.
(3) The Superintending Engineering (SE),
HPSEBL Circle, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P.
(4) The Executive Engineer,
HPSEBL, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P.
......... Appellants.
Versus
(1) Kashmir Singh Guleria, son of late Shri Besar Singh Guleria,
Resident of Village & Post Office Bhangrotu,
Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P.
(2) Raj Rattan Sharma,
SDO, HPSEBL Ner Chowk,
Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P.
......... Respondents.
.........................................................................................
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President
Hon'ble Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Member
Hon'ble Mr. Vijay Pal Khachi, Member
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Appellants: Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate.
For Respondents No.1 & 2: In person.
..........................................................................................
1
Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order?
The Secretary, HPSEB Ltd. & Ors. Versus Kashmir Singh Guleria & Anr.
(F.A. No.244/2014)
____________________________________________________________
O R D E R:
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) Appellants are aggrieved by the order dated 18.06.2014, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandi, whereby a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, filed against them by respondent-Kashmir Singh Guleria, has been allowed and a direction given to them (the appellants) to remove the problem of low voltage, within twenty days of the passing of impugned order and bills Annexures (Mark) C to F have been quashed with further direction to revise the said bills and the excess amount, if any, after revision of bills, has been directed to be adjusted against future bills. In addition, there is a direction for payment of `3,000/-, being compensation for mental harassment and `2,000/- have been ordered to be paid, on account of litigation expenses.
2. Respondent No.1/complainant filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging that he is a 'consumer' of electricity, provided at his residence in Bhangrotu Page 2 of 9 The Secretary, HPSEB Ltd. & Ors. Versus Kashmir Singh Guleria & Anr.
(F.A. No.244/2014) ____________________________________________________________ in Mandi District. Electricity is supplied by the appellants. He alleged that service wire, connecting his building with the main supply line of the appellants, is defective and broken at points and those broken points have been joined, without covering the naked ends properly. According to him, because of the wire being defective and having so- many joints with naked ends, voltage of electricity at his premises, was very low. Also, he alleged that meter installed in his premises, was defective for which he had been complaining, since long, but it was replaced only in March, 2012. He further alleged that he had been approaching the appellants to provide two phase connection to his premises, but his request had fallen on deaf ears. He alleged that when the meter was ultimately checked, it was found that it was defective, but no discount had been given in the bills, Annexures (Mark) C, D, E & F, which are for the period from 20.09.2010 to 21.01.2012.
3. Complaint was contested by the appellants. They denied that service line provided on the spot, for supply of electricity to the premises of the complainant, was defective and broken. Also, it was denied that voltage of electricity, at the premises Page 3 of 9 The Secretary, HPSEB Ltd. & Ors. Versus Kashmir Singh Guleria & Anr.
(F.A. No.244/2014) ____________________________________________________________ of the complainant, was low. It was stated that meter was checked and it was found that it was too fast by 5.264% and accordingly, a discount of 144 units, was given to him, in the bills for the last six months and for the aforesaid number of units, a sum of `468/-, had been reduced from the revised bills for the period from August, 2011 to February, 2012.
4. Learned District Forum, vide impugned order, has allowed the complaint and issued directions, as noticed hereinabove.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants, as also the respondents, who are present in person and gone through the record.
6. We find on the record of learned District Forum Mark A, a copy of registered notice sent by respondent No.1 to the appellants, inter alia, complaining that meter installed in his premises was defective, because of which he had received a bill showing consumption of electricity worth `3,644/- for the months of November & December, 2011, whereas the electricity consumption from July to October, 2011, was worth `2,114/- only. The notice also makes reference to excessive amounts of money claimed in the bills for August, September & December, 2010. Page 4 of 9 The Secretary, HPSEB Ltd. & Ors. Versus Kashmir Singh Guleria & Anr.
(F.A. No.244/2014) ____________________________________________________________ Also, it is written in the notice that bills had been on the higher side since the installation of meter in the year 1993. The aforesaid notice, Mark A, is dated 28.04.2012. Meter was tested by the appellants, as per their own case, in March, 2012 and it was found that it had been recording higher consumption and the difference between actual consumption and consumption recorded by the meter was 5.264%. Appellants have given benefit of excessive recording of consumption for the period of six months, preceding the date of meter testing, i.e. from August, 2011 to February, 2012.
7. Respondent No.1/complainant claims benefit in respect of four more bills. The same are marked C, D, E & F. Bill Mark C is dated 20th September, 2010 and it was paid against receipt dated 20.09.2010. Bill Mark D is dated 24th January, 2011 and it was paid on the day of its issue. Bill Mark E is dated 25.11.2011 and bill Mark F is dated 21.01.2012. Though, the period of consumption of electricity is not mentioned in these bills, yet it can legitimately be presumed that bill dated 25.11.2011 pertains to the period immediately preceding the date Page 5 of 9 The Secretary, HPSEB Ltd. & Ors. Versus Kashmir Singh Guleria & Anr.
(F.A. No.244/2014) ____________________________________________________________ of its issue and so should be the case in respect of bill dated 21.01.2012.
8. Appellants have given discount on account of excessive consumption recorded by the defective meter for the period from August, 2011 to February, 2012 and, therefore, it can legitimately be assumed that discount in respect of the aforesaid two bills Mark E & F, has already been given. Therefore, the learned District Forum was not justified in quashing all the four bills. Only bills Annexure (Mark) C & Annexure (Mark) D were required to be quashed.
9. As regards the order of learned District Forum that voltage is low, suffice it to say that the record of learned District Forum shows that it directed the recording of voltage by the Lineman of the appellants, vide order dated 15.01.2014. Pursuant to this order dated 15.01.2014, voltage was recorded at the premises of the complainant (respondent No.1) on three different occasions. On 18.02.2014, one Prem Singh, an employee of the appellants, recorded voltage at 08.15 a.m. and found the same to be 195. On 17.02.2014, Neeraj Kumar Walia recorded the voltage to be 230.6. His report is available as Annexure R-3. Time at which the voltage was Page 6 of 9 The Secretary, HPSEB Ltd. & Ors. Versus Kashmir Singh Guleria & Anr.
(F.A. No.244/2014) ____________________________________________________________ recorded does not find mention in the report. On 21.03.2014, one Rajinder Kumar, Assistant Lineman, recorded the voltage to be 227 at 08.15 p.m., which was supposedly the peak hour. Rajinder Kumar's report is Annexure R-4. He submitted another report Annexure R-5, in which he stated that respondent/ complainant refused to sign the report, claiming that voltage was required to be 250.
10. We have been told that standard voltage in respect of single phase connection is 230 volt with variation of 6% on either side. That means, voltage in respect of single phase connection would be normal, if it varies from 216 to 243 volts. No-doubt, one Prem Singh recorded the voltage to be 195 on 17.02.2014, but it was during day time and there is dispute between the parties whether that time falls within peak-hours or lean-hours.
11. Another grievance of respondent No.1/ complainant is that he is not being provided two- phase connection, despite requests. We do not find any documentary evidence, showing that respondent No.1, at any point of time, made any application and completed the requisite formalities for seeking a two- phase connection. Mr. Manoj Puri, Assistant Executive Page 7 of 9 The Secretary, HPSEB Ltd. & Ors. Versus Kashmir Singh Guleria & Anr.
(F.A. No.244/2014) ____________________________________________________________ Engineer, who represents appellant No.4 says that appellant No.4 is prepared to give two or three phase connection, whichever may be demanded by respondent No.1/complainant, provided he completes the formalities and makes the requisite payment.
12. As a result of the above stated position, we partly accept the appeal. Order of learned District Forum, quashing four bills (Mark C to F) is modified and instead of four bills, only two bills, i.e. Mark C & D are quashed. Order regarding other two bills, i.e. Mark E & Mark F is set aside. Order of learned District Forum for removing the defect in service wire based on the finding that voltage at the premises of respondent No.1/complainant is low, is also set aside. However, in view of the submission of Mr. Manoj Puri, Assistant Executive Engineer, it is directed that as and when respondent No.1/complainant applies for two or three phase connection and completes the formalities and makes requisite payments, two or three phase connection, whichever may be demanded by respondent No.1/complainant, shall be made available to him. Order of learned District Forum regarding payment of compensation and litigation expenses is though upheld, yet it is directed that the sum total of Page 8 of 9 The Secretary, HPSEB Ltd. & Ors. Versus Kashmir Singh Guleria & Anr.
(F.A. No.244/2014) ____________________________________________________________ compensation and costs, i.e. `5,000/- shall be adjusted against future bills.
13. We have been told that money has already been deposited with this Commission by the appellants. The same is ordered to be refunded to the appellants, with interest accrued thereon upto date, by transfer into their bank account. Appellants are directed to furnish the particulars of bank account to the Registry of this Commission for doing the needful.
14. A copy of the order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.
(Justice Surjit Singh) President (Prem Chauhan) Member (Vijay Pal Khachi) Member October 6, 2014.
*dinesh* Page 9 of 9