State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Uttrakhand Power Corporation Ltd. vs Abdul Majid on 14 August, 2018
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRADUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 246 / 2011
1. Uttarakhand Power Corporation Limited
through its Executive Engineer, EDD (Rural)
Haridwar
2. Executive Engineer, EDD (Rural)
Uttarakhand Power Corporation Limited
Haridwar
...... Appellants
Versus
Sh. Abdul Majeed S/o late Sh. Rahim Baksh
R/o F-31, Industrial Area
Bahadrabad, Tehsil and District Haridwar
...... Respondent
Sh. S.M. Jain, Learned Counsel for the Appellants
None for Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.S. Verma, President
Mrs. Veena Sharma, Member
Dated: 14/08/2018
ORDER
(Per: Justice B.S. Verma, President):
This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against the order dated 15.10.2011 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 65 of 2011.
2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the appeal are that F-31, Industrial Area was developed by U.P. Industrial Development Corporation. For the Industrial Unit in question, Sh. Gul Hassan, the son of the complainant, had obtained a commercial electricity connection No. 048967 of 5 kilowatt load from the electricity department. There is less electricity consumption in the Unit and, as 2 such, the electricity bill comes of meagre amount. Unfortunately, Sh. Gul Hassan, the son of the complainant passed away, on account of which, the electricity bills could not be deposited in time, but later on, the complainant deposited all the bills. On 10.11.2009, in the absence of the complainant, electronic meter was installed in the premises of the complainant in place of mechanical meter, but no sealing report was made available to the complainant. The signatures of the employee of the complainant were obtained by the officials of the electricity department on blank sealing certificate. At the time of uninstalling the mechanical meter, the meter reading was not noted by the official of the electricity department, nor the meter was sealed in presence of the complainant's employee. On receipt of 1st electricity bill on 09.12.2009 after installation of electronic meter, the complainant came to know that at the time of uninstalling the mechanical meter in the month of November, 2009, the meter reading was 76434 units, whereas there was not so much unit consumption and the meter reading was wrongly shown to the above excessive extent. The complainant approached the electricity department for correction of the electricity bill, whereupon he was assured that the mistake would be corrected in the 2nd bill, but the mistake was not corrected. The complainant again approached the electricity department for correction of the bill, but to no avail. On 24.12.2010, the electronic meter was removed by the electricity department from the premises of the complainant and the electricity cable was also taken away. On account of disconnection of electricity connection, the Industrial Unit has become out of function. The electricity department issued a demand notice dated 13.01.2011 for sum of Rs. 4,59,678/-, which was illegal. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the electricity department, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar.
33. The electricity department filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that since the electricity connection in question is commercial and, as such, the Consumer Fora has got no jurisdiction in the matter; that the complainant has not got the electricity connection transferred in his name; that the electricity bills in respect of consumed electricity bills were regularly issued, but the same were not deposited since long; that no incorrect electricity bill was issued by the department; that on account of non-deposit of electricity bills, the electricity connection was disconnected and that there is no deficiency in service on their part.
4. The District Forum, after perusal of the record, allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 15.10.2011 and directed the electricity department to issue fresh bill to the respondent
- complainant on the basis of average of previous electricity bills and to receive the amount of the bill from the respondent - complainant according to the fresh bill. It was also directed that in case the respondent - complainant wants to take the electricity connection in his own name, the electricity connection be transferred in his name. The District Forum has further directed the electricity department to pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to the respondent - complainant and in case the electricity department does not want to pay the above amount, the same should be adjusted in the electricity bills. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellants have filed the present appeal before this Commission.
5. None appeared on behalf of respondent - complainant inspite of sufficient service. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and gone through the record.
46. Admittedly, the electricity connection in question was a commercial connection, as has also been admitted by the complainant in para 2 of the consumer complaint. There is further no dispute with regard to the fact that the electricity connection in question was taken for running an Industrial Unit situated at the Industrial Area, Bahadrabad, Tehsil and District Haridwar. The electricity department has specifically pleaded in the written statement filed before the District Forum that since the electricity connection was commercial one and hence the Consumer Fora has got no jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint and to decide it on merit.
7. The impugned order passed by the District Forum shows that the said plea of the electricity department was not taken into consideration by the District Forum and no finding was recorded with regard thereto. Since the electricity connection in question was a commercial connection and hence the complainant does not fall under the definition of "consumer", as provided under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the consumer complaint filed by him was not at all maintainable. It would not be out of place to mention here that admittedly, the electricity connection was in the name of Gul Hassan, the son of the complainant, who had expired, as has been stated by the complainant in para 4 of the consumer complaint, but the electricity connection was not got transferred by the complainant in his name. Thus, there was also no relationship of consumer and service provider between the complainant and the electricity department. The District Forum has also accepted that the electricity connection was not in the complainant's name and this is the reason that the District Forum has also passed a direction that in case the complainant wants to take connection in his name, the electricity department should transfer the same in his name.
58. It would also not be out of place to mention here that the sealing report dated 10.11.2009 bears the signatures of the complainant's employee and hence it can not be said that the entries in the said sealing report were later on made / got filled by the officials of the electricity department or they have shown some incorrect entries in the said report. Since the complainant did not deposit the electricity bills and hence there was no inaction on the part of the electricity department in issuing the demand notice, thereby demanding the arrears of electricity dues under Section 3 of Uttarakhand Government Electrical Undertakings (Dues Recovery) Act, 1958.
9. The District Forum has not properly considered the facts and circumstances of the case and has wrongly allowed the consumer complaint per impugned order, which can not legally be sustained and is liable to be set aside. Consequently, the appeal deserves to be allowed.
10. Appeal is allowed. Order impugned dated 15.10.2011 passed by the District Forum is set aside and consumer complaint No. 65 of 2011 is dismissed. The statutory amount of Rs. 2,500/- deposited by the appellants at the time of filing the appeal, be released in their favour. No order as to costs.
(MRS. VEENA SHARMA) (JUSTICE B.S. VERMA) K