State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. & ... vs Om Prakash Taneja on 8 May, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UTTARAKHAND,
DEHRADUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 290/2010
1. Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd.
Through its Executive Engineer
Electrical Distribution Division (Urban)
Haridwar
2. Executive Engineer
Electrical Distribution Division (Urban)
Haridwar
......Appellants
Versus
Shri Om Prakash Taneja
S/o Late Shri Laxman Dass Taneja
R/o E-80, Panjabi Akhada
Bangali Road, District Haridwar
......Respondent
Mr. S.M. Jain, Learned Counsel for the Appellants
Mr. Ravi Bhushan Chawla, Learned Counsel for the Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.C. Kandpal, President
Mr. C.C. Pant, Member
Mrs. Kusumlata Sharma, Member
Dated: 08/05/2012
ORDER
(Per: Mr. C.C. Pant, Member):
This appeal is directed against the order dated 01.09.2010 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Haridwar allowing the Consumer Complaint No. 354/2007 and directing the opposite party to issue the electricity bill to the complainant with correct electricity connection number and to pay him a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation within a month from the date of the order.
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the complainant Shri Om Prakash Taneja had taken an electricity connection bearing connection 2 No. 091310 from the Electricity Department - opposite party on 14.04.2007. After the installation of the electricity meter, the complainant observed that the meter was running very fast. Therefore, the complainant made a complaint to the Assistant Engineer of the Electricity Department in this regard vide his letter dated 28.05.2007. After sometime, the complainant received the first electricity bill dated 24.09.2007 for the period from 31.05.2007 to 31.07.2007, in which the Electricity Department has shown an arrear of Rs. 475/- against the complainant. The total amount of the electricity bill including the said arrear was Rs. 1,237/-. The complainant also noticed that the electricity connection number in the bill was printed as 091123 instead of the actual electricity connection No. 091310. The complainant has alleged that inspite of several visits to the Electricity Office, the officials of the Electricity Department did not take any action with regard to fast running of the meter, arrear of Rs. 475/- shown in the bill and incorrect electricity connection number printed on the electricity bill. The complainant then made a complaint to the District Magistrate, Haridwar vide his letter dated 29.10.2007 in this regard, but no action was taken. This led the complainant to file a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar on 15.11.2007. The District Forum, after an appreciation of the facts of the case, allowed the consumer complaint vide its order dated 01.09.2010 and directed the opposite party in the above manner. Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party has filed this appeal.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the District Forum has awarded compensation of Rs. 5,000/- without any basis and evidence. The details of the electricity meter reading, electricity connection number etc. are sent to the private agency for 3 preparation of the electricity bills. It appears that the agency had wrongly typed the electricity connection number of the consumer - respondent, resulting an error in the electricity bill, but such an error is just a human error and it did not cause any financial loss to the respondent. Therefore, the award of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation is not just.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent reiterated the facts of the case and argued in support of the impugned order.
6. We considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. We have held in First Appeal No. 274/2010; Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. and another vs Arun Sharma, decided on 02.05.2012 that any negligence, such as typing the connection number incorrectly by the Electricity Department or its agency amounts to deficiency in service made by the Electricity Department. In the said case, the Electricity Department had issued two types of electricity bills with different electricity connection numbers. Though the consumer had deposited the bills with correct connection number, but due to confusion, he also deposited one of the bills with incorrect connection number. He could get it adjusted only when a consumer complaint was filed. In the instant case, the respondent - complainant appears to be quite prudent as he did not deposit the electricity bill unless and until it is corrected. Had the electricity bill been deposited, it might had given rise to another dispute in future. The appellants may take the stand in such disputes that the consumer had already one electricity connection No. 091123 and the amount was deposited against this connection while, the bills pertaining to electricity connection No. 091310 are unpaid and, therefore, the Electricity Department has disconnected the electricity connection. In the instant case, we also see the height of the negligence done by the appellants in preparing the electricity bills. In the bill dated 25.02.2008 (Paper 4 No. 19), which is for the period from 28.11.2007 to 27.01.2008, the electricity connection number is printed as 091323. That means, the appellants can make any change in the connection number in the bills and if the consumer is not vigilant in this regard, he/she will be easily and innocently trapped in the electricity department's mesh. If, in addition he/she is an illiterate, we can just imagine his/her sorry plight in such cases. The respondent, it appears, had some bitter experience with the Electricity Department in the past. That is why, before depositing the bill, he went through each and every entry made in bill. Perhaps the proverb that a burnt child dreads fire (vFkkZr~ nw/k dk tyk NkN dks Hkh Qawd&Qawd ds ihrk gS) applies to him. Though he has not suffered any financial loss but he has certainly undergone a lot of inconvenience, mental and physical agony, particularly at the age of 80 years, due to the negligence made by the appellants. Therefore, keeping in view the respondent's age and also that the appellants had repeated the mistake with regard to electricity connection number, we cannot say that the compensation awarded by the District Forum is on a higher side. Therefore, the impugned order does not call for any interference at this level. However, the respondent is also entitled to cost of appeal, which we assess at Rs. 3,000/-.
8. The appeal is dismissed. The order dated 01.09.2010 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar is confirmed and the appellants are directed to pay to the respondent sum of Rs. 3,000/- towards cost of appeal within 30 days from the date of this order.
(MRS. KUSUMLATA SHARMA) (C.C. PANT) (JUSTICE B.C. KANDPAL)