State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sarabjeet Singh vs Bses Yamuna Power Limited on 27 February, 2007
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 clause (b)of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ) Date of Decision: 27-02-2007 Appeal No. A-821/2005 (Arising from the order dated 20-09-2005 passed by District Forum(East), Saini Enclave, Delhi in Complaint Case No.730/2005) Shri Sarabjeet Singh, Appellant S/o Shri Virender Singh through GF-253, Street No. 5, Mr. Harmesh Kumar, Bhola Nath Nagar, Advocate. Shahdara, Delhi-110032. Versus BSES Yamuna Power Limited Respondent Through its Business Manager, Through Shakti Kiran, Karkardooma, Ms. Sanjana J. Bali, Delhi-110092. Advocate. CORAM : Justice J.D. Kapoor- President Ms. Rumnita Mittal - Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
JUSTICE J.D. KAPOOR, PRESIDENT (ORAL) Admittedly the electricity meter bearing K. No. 1210 1316 0047 was installed at the premises of the appellant around June, 1999. Till September, 2003 no electricity bill was raised. The allegation against the respondent was that instead of recording correct number of units which was 1595 the respondent recorded the figure as 15950. The bill raised on 10-03-2004 showed the reading of units as 19995 and the bill was for Rs. 65,908.74.
Appellant requested the respondent several times to correct the bill but the same was not rectified. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has filed the instant complaint before the District Forum.
2. During the pendency of the complaint the District Forum directed the officials of the respondent to inspect the premises. One Shri Daya Kishan, AG III inspected the premises of the appellant and reading was recorded 18-09-2003 showing 15950 units. Again on 26-02-2005 the consumption of units shows as 27731 and on 31-05-2005 as 29526. On the basis of this report the District Forum gave the direction to the respondent to revise the bill as under:-
1.
Charge for 29515 units from 17-04-1999 to 31-05-2005 after giving due slabs and no LPSC be charged.
2. Replace the meter at the option of complainant.
3. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
4. It is settled law that no person can take advantage of its own omission and commission. It is not understandable as to what prevented respondent from not raising bill for continuously long four years. The contention of the appellant that the address of the appellant was not traceable is difficult to accept as that premises was inspected by the Meter Reader almost every month and if there was no report of the Meter Reader continuously for six months or one year the respondent should have woken up and made enquiry as to what was the reason. Instead of rectifying its own error it recorded the consumption of the appellant continuously four long years to the figures as 15950 units.
5. However, we cannot be oblivious of the fact that appellant also remained silent for four long years and continued using energy without making payment. If he had not received the bill he should have immediately approached the respondent calling upon it to raise the bill.
6. Taking over all view of the matter and holding respondent guilty for deficiency in service in not raising bill as per provisions of law and the contributory negligence of the appellant in not insisting respondent to raise electricity bill upon him, we in view of provisions of section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and on the rule of prudence deem that the respondent shall be entitled to recover the bill for the period of two years from the date when the bill become due. Sub section (2) of section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003 provides that no sum due from any consumer shall be recoverable after the period of two years from the date when such payment become due and unless such sum has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrears of electricity supplied. We are taking this two years period on the premise that the provisional bill were not recoverable but on the premise that at least the bills which were due for the period of two years from the date when first bill was raised should be at least made recoverable from the appellant.
7. In view of the foregoing reasons we allow the appeal by modifying the impugned order by directing the respondent to raise revised bill dated 19-09-2003 for the period of two years providing thereto on the basis of average consumption recorded by the respondent by taking the bills of March, 2004, July, 2004 and February 2005 and May, 2005 as the basis.
8. Appeal is disposed of in aforesaid terms.
9. F.D.R./Bank Guarantee, if any, furnished by the appellant be returned forthwith after completion of due formalities.
10. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.
11. Announced on the 27th February, 2007 (Justice J.D. Kapoor) President (Rumnita Mittal) Member jj