State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Guru Charan Singh Juneja vs C.G.State Power Dist. Co. Ltd. on 1 December, 2015
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G).
Appeal No.FA/15/94
Instituted on : 18.03.2015
Gurucharan Singh Juneja,
S/o Late Sardar Mohan Singh Juneja,
Age 65 years, R/o : Mahamaya Road,
Ambikapur, District Surgjuja (C.G.) ... Appellant.
Vs.
Superintending Engineer (City),
C.G. State Power Distribution Company Limited,
Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) ... Respondent.
PRESENT: -
HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI R.S.SHARMA, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MS. HEENA THAKKAR, MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI D.K. PODDAR, MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI NARENDRA GUPTA, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES: -
Shri K. Anandani, for the appellant.
Shri R.K. Bhawnani, for the respondent.
ORDER
Dated : 01/12/2015 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT. This appeal is directed against the order dated 30.12.2014, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Surguja - Ambikapur, (henceforth called "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.C.C./2014/87. By the impugned order, the District Forum has dismissed the complaint of the appellant (complainant).
// 2 //
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant (complainant) is resident of Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) and he obtained electricity connection No.1000992672 and 1000992674 from the respondent (O.P). In the month of June, 2007 the meter of the appellant (complainant) was damaged and was giving problem. Intimation regarding the above fact was given by the appellant (complainant) to the respondent (O.P.), but the respondent (O.P.) did not give any response and the officer of the respondent (O.P.) is providing electricity bill for excessive amount. The appellant (complainant) made complaint from time to time to the officers of the respondent (O.P.) and they instructed their subordinate officer for doing the needful, but even then electricity bill for excessive amount was provided to the appellant (complainant). The respondent (O.P.) is providing bill in respect of the meters installed in the premises of the appellant (complainant) on estimate basis and the respondent (O.P.) is demanding amount of electricity bill irregularly and are harassing the appellant (complainant). The above act of the respondent (O.P.) come in the category of unfair trade practice. As per Electricity Act, the respondents (O.P.) are required to consider the complaint made by the appellant (complainant) regarding the meter and to inspect the meter through an Electrical Engineer and on the basis of his report to demand the amount, but they have not followed the above procedure and they are calculating the estimated consumption and sent bill, // 3 // which is not acceptable. The appellant (complainant) submitted Complaint No.227/2012 before Electricity Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Bilaspur (C.G.) for making correction in the electricity bill and thereafter issue correct bill, which was allowed vide order dated 30.10.2012 and respondents have been directed to issue electricity bill to the appellant (complainant) as per electricity consumption, but the respondents did not take any action to comply the above direction. Then the appellant (complainant) filed Complaint Case No.5/2014 before Permanent Lok Adalat Legal Aid Service, Ambikapur, which was returned on 01.09.2014 with a direction for taking legal action, as the respondent did not make any compromise. Therefore, the appellant (complainant) filed consumer complaint before the District Forum and prayed for granting reliefs, as mentioned in the relief clause of the complaint.
3. The respondent (O.P.) filed written statement and denied the allegations made by the appellant (complainant) against it in the complaint. The respondent (O.P.) averred that both the electricity meters which were installed in the premises of the appellant (complainant) were closed prior to year 2004, therefore, average billing was done on both the service number. In the month of April, 2008 meter of service No.1000992672 was replaced by a new electronic meter, in which according to consumption, regular billing was done // 4 // and there was no error in billing, but the appellant (complainant) was not satisfied and he submitted above complaint before Electricity Consumer Complaint Redressal Forum, Bilaspur in respect of above service number The Electricity Consumer Complaint Redressal Forum, Bilaspur registered the complaint as Complaint No.L.T./227/2012 on 13.09.2012 and passed Order No.254/2012 on 30.10.2012 in which the respondent (O.P.) was directed to revised bill to the appellant (complainant) on the basis of actual (accurate) consumption by assessing correct rate and in response thereto the respondent (O.P.) issued revised bill to the appellant (complainant), but even then till date the appellant (complainant) did not make payment of the bill and is also not paying the bills issued thereafter and he again filed consumer complaint before the District Forum in respect of the same service number, which is not as per provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and the complaint is not maintainable. The Service No.1000992674, is in the name of the appellant (complainant) and the meter of the above service No. was also closed prior to year 2004 therefore, average billing was done and the appellant (complainant) paid the bill amount regularly. In the month of June, 2009 the meter of above service number was replaced by a new electronic meter and the same was installed in the premises of the appellant (complainant). As per consumption of the electricity, bill was regularly issued which was regularly paid by the appellant // 5 // (complainant) without raising any objection. The officers of the respondent (O.P.) are not repeatedly giving bill for the excessive amount to the appellant (complainant). The respondent (O.P.) is not providing electricity bill to the appellant (complainant) without taking reading of the meter and is issued bill on conjecture/guess. The respondent (O.P.) is not irregularly demanding from the appellant (complainant) to pay electricity bill amount and did not harassing him. The matter is not in respect of inspection of the meter and the appellant (complainant) has not submitted any application before the respondent (O.P. ) as per rules. The appellant (complainant) was not satisfied with the order passed by Electricity Consumer Complaint Redressal Forum, Bilaspur on 30.10.2012, therefore, he submitted an application before Chairman, Permanent Lok Adalat, Ambikapur, which was dismissed on the ground that the prior to approaching this Court, the appellant (complainant) has already filed complaint before the competent Court and by suppressing true facts he submitted application. Consequently, the application filed by the appellant (complainant) was found as not to be considered and out of jurisdiction of the court, and the appellant (complainant) was directed to pay the revised bill. The respondent (O.P.) further averred that prior to approaching District Forum, the appellant (complainant) had already filed complaint before Electricity Consumer Complaint Redressal Forum, Bilaspur in which appropriate order was passed on // 6 // 30.10.2012 and that Forum is equivalent to the District Forum. If the appellant (complainant) was dissatisfied with the order dated 30.10.2012, then he was free to file appeal before Ombudsman, C.G. State Power Distribution Company Limited, Raipur, but the appellant (complainant) did not file any appeal against the above order within limitation and now he has again filed complaint before the equivalent Forum, whereas the Electricity Consumer Complaint Redressal Forum, Bilaspur, has not provided any provided any exemption to the appellant (complainant). The complaint of the appellant (complainant) is liable to be dismissed. The appellant (complainant) has filed complaint before the District Forum in respect of bills issued for the year 2007, but the appellant (complainant) has not filed complaint within 2 years therefore, the complaint is time barred.
4. Learned District Forum, after having considered the material placed before it by the parties, has dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated 30.12.2014.
5. The appellant (complainant) filed documents. The documents are : copy of order dated 01.09.2014 passed by Chairman, Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Service), Ambikapur, order No.254/2012 dated 30.10.2012 passed by Electricity Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Case No.L.T./225/2012 dated 13.09.2012 - Shri Mohar Singh Through Shri Sardar Gurucharan Singh vs. // 7 // Executive Engineer (O & M) Division, C.G. State Power Distribution Co. Ltd. Ambikapur (C.G.) and another, office note of Assistant Engineer (City), C.G. State Power Distribution Co. Ltd., Ambikapur.
6. The respondent (O.P.) filed document which are billing particulars of Service No.1000992672, copy of order No.254/2012 dated 30.10.2012 passed by Electricity Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Case No.L.T./227/2012 dated 13.09.2012 - Shri Mohar Singh Through Shri Sardar Gurucharan Singh vs. Executive Engineer (O & M) Division, C.G. State Power Distribution Co. Ltd. Ambikapur (C.G.) and another, billing particulars of Service No.1000992674, copy of order No.251/2012 dated 30.10.2012 passed by Electricity Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Case No.L.T./225/2012 dated 13.09.2012 Shri Sardar Gurucharan Singh vs. Executive Engineer (O & M) Division, C.G. State Power Distribution Co. Ltd. Ambikapur (C.G.) and another.
7. We have perused the record of the District Forum.
8. Initially the appellant (complaint) filed complaint case No.L.T./227/2012 before Electricity Consumer Complaint Redressal Forum, Bilaspur and learned Electricity Consumer Complaint Redressal Forum, Bilaspur vide order No.254/2012 dated 30.10.2012 partly allowed the complaint and directed thus :-
// 8 //
1. The respondent (O.P.) is directed to revise the bill as per Clause 10-15 (C) of C.G. State Electricity Supply Code according to meter reading for the period April, 2012 on the basis of actual consumption of the electricity by assessing correct rate . If the applicant during the above period paid any extra amount then the same be adjusted in future bills as per rules.
2. The respondent (O.P.) is directed that the respondent at it's level will ensure to take action immediate against the employee/officer/franchisee/meter reader within a particular time limit, so that in future such act may not be repeated.
9. Thereafter, the appellant (complainant) filed an application before the Chairman, Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Ambikapur, District Surjuja (C.G.) and learned Chairman, Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Ambikapur, District Surguja observed in his order has observed that the appellant (complainant) initially filed an application before competent Forum in which he has suppressed material facts, therefore, application filed by the appellant (complainant) before Chairman, Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Ambikapur is not maintainable and the applicable is not triable by it and dismissed the application of the appellant // 9 // (complainant) vide order dated 01.09.2014. and the appellant (complainant) was directed to pay the revised bill.
10. The learned Electricity Consumer Complaint Redressal Forum, Bilaspur specifically directed that if the appellant (complainant) is not satisfied with the order No.254/2012 dated 30.10.2012 passed by them, then he has liberty to file appeal against above order before Ombudsman, C.G. State Power Distribution Co. Ltd. The respondent (O.P.) pleaded that on the basis of direction given by learned Electricity Consumer Complaint Redressal Forum, Bilaspur the electricity bill of the appellant (complainant) was revised and revised bill was sent to the appellant (complainant), but the appellant (complainant) did not pay the amount of bill. If the appellant (complainant) was dissatisfied with the revised bill issued by the respondent (O.P.) to him, the he has liberty to file complaint before Electricity Consumer Complaint Redressal Forum, Bilaspur or to file appeal before Ombudsman, C.G. State Power Distribution Co. Ltd.
11. In the instant case, the appellant (complainant) was dissatisfied with the revised bill issued by the respondent (O.P.) to him, but the appellant (complainant) did file any application or complaint before Electricity Consumer Complaint Redressal Forum, Blaspur, even he did not file any appeal before Ombudsman, C.G. State Power Distribution Co. Ltd and directly filed consumer complaint before the // 10 // District Forum. The learned District Forum has righty observed that the order passed by Electricity Consumer Complaint Redressal Forum, Bilaspur, is appropriate and therefore, no parallel proceeding was required in two different Forums and the District Forum has rightly observed that the complaint is not maintainable. The complaint filed by the appellant (complainant) is barred by res-juidicata.
12. In the facts and circumstance of the case, the complaint filed by the appellant (complainant) before the District Forum, under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is not maintainable.
13. Accordingly, without going into merits of the appeal, we dismiss the appeal filed by appellant (complainant) with liberty to the appellant (complainant) to seek appropriate remedy available to him before other appropriate Forum. No order as to the cost of this appeal. (Justice R.S. Sharma) (Ms. Heena Thakkar) (D.K. Poddar) (NarendraGupta) President Member Member Member /12/2015 /12/2015 /12/2015 /12/2015