State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd., ... vs Arun Sharma on 2 May, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UTTARAKHAND,
DEHRADUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 274/2010
1. Uttarakhand Power Corporation
Through its Executive Engineer
Electrical Distribution Division (Urban)
Haridwar
2. Sub Divisional Officer
Electrical Distribution Sub-Division
Dheerwali, Jwalapur, Near Foundry Gate
Haridwar
......Appellants/Opposite Parties
Versus
Shri Arun Sharma
S/o Late Shri Baldev Raj Sharma
R/o B/8, Subhash Nagar
Jwalapur, Haridwar
......Respondent/Complainant
Mr. S.M. Jain, Learned Counsel for the Appellants
Mr. Vivek Painuli, Learned Counsel for the Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.C. Kandpal, President
Mr. C.C. Pant, Member
Mrs. Kusumlata Sharma, Member
Dated: 02/05/2012
ORDER
(Per: Mr. C.C. Pant, Member):
This appeal is directed against the order dated 28.06.2010 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Haridwar allowing the Consumer Complaint No. 61/2010 and directing the opposite party, the Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd., to issue the electricity bills to the complainant for his actual electricity connection No. 095592 and to adjust the amount paid by him against the wrongly issued bills in his corrected bill for the actual 2 connection number within a month from the date of the order and also to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation.
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the complainant Shri Arun Sharma has an electricity connection bearing connection No. 095592 for his residential house. He has always been paying the electricity bills regularly against the said electricity connection, but the Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. (for short "UPCL") is also sending electricity bills against the connection bearing No. 009552 to the complainant, which has nothing to do with the complainant. The complainant has alleged that besides sending a bill for the connection No. 009552, the UPCL has been issuing incorrect bills against the actual connection No. (i.e. 009552) showing therein "ADF" in place of actual meter reading. The complainant has also alleged that the employees of the UPCL refused to correct the electricity bills on the ground that the meter reading has been shown "ADF" and, therefore, it cannot be corrected. The complainant has also stated that since he has been receiving two types of electricity bills, one for the electricity connection No. 095592 and another for 009552, his brother, due to confusion, deposited an amount of Rs. 2,275/- against the bill issued for connection No. 009552. The Electricity Department has also refused to adjust the amount of Rs. 2,275/- in the electricity bills issued against the actual connection No. 095592. When the Electricity Department did not help him, the complainant sent a registered notice dated 25-01-2010 to the Electricity Department, but the Electricity Department did not reply to this notice. This led the complainant to file a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar on 08.03.2010. The notice was issued to the appellants/Electricity Department, but it did not file any written statement. However, the District Forum vide its order dated 26.04.2010 passed an order to proceed ex-parte against the Electricity Department. Thereafter, the District Forum, after an appreciation of the facts of the case, allowed the consumer complaint vide its order dated 28.06.2010 and directed the UPCL in the above manner. Aggrieved by the 3 order, the UPCL through its Executive Engineer, EDD(Urban), Haridwar and SDO, Electricity Distribution Sub-Division, Haridwar have filed this appeal.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. The learned counsel for the appellants urged that the appeal be decided on the basis of the material available on record.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the electricity bills are prepared by a private agency, which made an error while typing the actual connection number and missed to type the digit "9" and, thus, prepared the bill for an electricity connection No. "009552" instead of "095592". It being on human error, cannot be termed as a deficiency in service committed by the appellants. It was a mistake on the part of the complainant - respondent that he made payment of the bill with incorrect electricity connection number. The complainant should have contacted the officers of the UPCL in this regard. However, the payment so made by the respondent has been adjusted in his regular bills and now there is no dispute between the parties on this point. The appellants have also stopped sending bills with incorrect electricity connection number. Since, the respondent has not suffered any loss, the compensation awarded by the District Forum is most unjust. The learned counsel also submitted that the complaint is barred by time, as the bills with incorrect connection number were sent by the appellants to the respondent in September, 2007 and December, 2007, but the complaint has been filed on 08.03.2010. He also submitted that the respondent should have followed the procedure for correction of bills laid down under Regulation No. 3.3.3 of the Supply Code, 2007. He urged that the impugned order passed by the District Forum, Haridwar be set aside for the aforesaid reasons.
45. The learned counsel for the respondent- complainant reiterated the facts of the case and argued in support of the order passed by the District Forum, Haridwar.
6. It is important to mention here that the impugned order was passed ex-parte against the appellants and therefore, this appeal is being decided at the request of the learned counsel for the appellants on whatever facts and evidence have been submitted by the appellants at this stage. The preliminary objection raised by the appellants is that the complaint is barred by time. In para 4 of the Memorandum of Appeal, the appellants have stated that the bills with incorrect connection are not being sent after July, 2010, i.e., after receiving the copy of the judgment and order passed by the District Forum. Therefore, the grievance of the respondent was very much in existence till this date and, therefore, it would be most illogical on the part of the appellants to say that the complaint is barred by time. Regarding the dispute of the bills, the appellants' explanation is also very ridiculous. It appears from the explanation as if the bills are prepared by typing the details and not by a computerised system. The UPCL has always been claiming that their bills are computerised and, therefore, their accounting system cannot have any chance of manipulation, but the instant case exposes the reality of the accounting system of the Electricity Department. A computer literate understands it very well what a computerised system is and the care to be taken in creating important master files containing vital data for the system. In the case of UPCL, i.e., electricity connection numbers, meter numbers and consumers' names and addresses etc. are such data which make the main master file. Any change or upgradation in this data should be made with due care and precaution. The system should also have an in-built self- check feature. If the system does not have any such feature, then it needs to be upgraded. But it appears that the UPCL, which is managed by highly qualified technocrats, has not done much in this direction. A computerised system does not mean a system to get only printed bills from the computer, 5 but it should aim at more and more accuracy and reliability and it should be viewed as an initial step towards office automation. Once the UPCL's system gets fully automated with various in-built features for ascertaining accuracy and reliability, it will be self-sufficient to take care of the problems of the consumers. If the UPCL carries on its business with the same age-old outlook and expects that in case of any error the consumer would approach the UPCL's authorities, make a request, get the bill corrected or if not corrected, will follow the various rules and regulations framed by the UPCL, then that sort of approach will not work and it would be certainly detrimental for the UPCL's reputation in present days fast life. Any such lapse on the part of the UPCL would amount to deficiency in service and the Consumer Fora may take an adverse view against the UPCL in all such cases.
7. In the instant case, it is evident that the UPCL or its private agency failed to take any such care or precaution and had created a new entry in the master file with connection number 009552 in the name and address of the complainant without ascertaining that the old entry with connection number 095592 already existed for the same consumer. Such a mistake cannot occur unless and until the updation sheet supplied by the UPCL to its agency is itself erroneous. Otherwise also, a mistake committed by the UPCL's agent is a mistake committed by the UPCL itself. Such an error cannot be termed a simple human error and the appellants cannot take the stand that such an error does not amount to deficiency in service. The appellants forget that as soon as a consumer receives a bill with incorrect details or for excessive amount, his/her mental agony makes him/her restless till the bill is corrected. In case the bill is not paid, there is always a risk of disconnection of the electricity supply. In present days' life, when family's size has become small with three or four members and all of them are either doing some job or studying somewhere, it becomes very difficult to find out time for correction of electricity bills. Therefore, in the instant case, the District Forum's order cannot be said unjust and without any basis for the award of 6 compensation. However, keeping in view that now there is no dispute between the parties with regard to bills and adjustment of amount, the compensation of Rs. 10,000/- as awarded by the District Forum, appears to be very high. In our opinion, a token amount of Rs. 1,000/- would be sufficient because even this small amount would make the appellants feel that they may be punished for such negligence. Further, the appellants have themselves admitted that the appellant No. 1, i.e., the UPCL through its Executive Engineer is the service provider. Therefore, apart from reducing the amount of compensation from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 1,000/-, the impugned order also needs modification with regard to the liability for payment of compensation. Accordingly, instead of both the appellants, the appellant No. 1 is held liable to pay an amount of Rs. 1,000/- as compensation to the respondent.
8. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is partly allowed. The order dated 28.06.2010 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar is modified by reducing the amount of compensation from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 1,000/- which shall be paid by the appellant No. 1, i.e., the UPCL through its Executive Engineer, EDD (Urban), Haridwar to the respondent. Cost of appeal made easy.
(MRS. KUSUMLATA SHARMA) (C.C. PANT) (JUSTICE B.C. KANDPAL) 7 25-10-11 The appeal is allowed. The order impugned dated 12.07.2006 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar is set aside. The consumer complaint no. 120/2003 is allowed and the respondent is directed to cancel the electricity bill dated 05.06.2003 for Rs. 4,86,243/- and also to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- to the appellant towards cost of litigation within a month from the date of the order.