S.C. Jain, Member:
1) The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the order dt. 22.05.2012 passed by District Forum (North) Tis Hazari, Delhi in Execution Case No. 108/09.
2) The brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that the respondent/complainant had filed the Consumer Complaint alleging deficiency of service on the part of the appellant. Electricity connection bearing K. No. 33105031646 was in the name of one M/s R.K. Enterprises. The respondent/complainant purchased the premises where this connection was installed sometime in 2007. On 28.03.2008 the above said connection was disconnected due to non-payment of outstanding dues but the respondent/complainant allegedly restored the electricity connection illegally and this fact came to the notice of the appellant when the officials of the appellant visited the premises of the respondent/complainant to ascertain meter reading and on many occasions the respondent/complainant deliberately did not allow the officers of the appellant to enter into the premises for remove the disconnecting meter. Having no other option the appellant/OP served notice under section 163 of electricity act upon the respondent/complainant to allow the appellant to inspect the premises and removal of the meter but inspite of their best efforts due to the resistance of the respondent/complainant the meter could not be removed from the premises. Aggrieved by the action of the appellant the respondent filed a consumer complaint before District Forum, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi.
3) During the pendency of the complaint party entered into a settlement before the District Forum on 29.05.2009 and on the basis of the settlement between the parties the District Forum disposed of the complaint as fully satisfied. The relevant extracts of the order dt. 29.05.2009 are reproduced herein below:œSettlement has been arrived at between parties. According to which OP had stated that after removal of meter bearing K.No. 33105031646 and on taking final reading of the meter, bill will be raised without any amount of illegal restoration if any within a week and they shall provide new connection in the name of complainant within 3 days after deposition of bill amount raised by them and on completion of commercial formalities.
Counsel for complainant agrees to the terms of settlement offered by OP and states that he has no other grievances and withdraws his complaint.
Accordingly, OPs are hereby directed to raise bill in respect of above K.No. as per their settlement within a week and shall also abide by their other part of statement made in the margin of this order sheet.
The complaint accordingly stands disposed off being fully satisfied and withdraw by the complaint. Copy of the order be given dasti to the parties as per law and file be consigned to record room.?
4) The appellant during the proceeding of Execution Case/application filed by the respondent/complainant before the District Forum submitted that they had complied the above orders in its entirety and in letter and spirit of the settlement as they have removed the meter as per settlement and took the final reading at the time of removal of the meter, which was undisputedly 3591 KVAH and they raised the bill on the consumption of 1786 KVAH units of electricity as per settlement and raised the final bill of Rs. 37,908/- and the same was handed over to the respondent/complainant under receipt alongwith complete details/working of reaching to the above said amount. The respondent/complainant has paid this amount of Rs. 37,908/- without any demure or protest and the appellant also provided the new connection in the name of the complainant as per the settlement. Inspite of depositing the amount of the bill raised by the appellant as per the settlement and getting the new connection in her name the respondent/complainant filed application under section 27 of Consumer Protecting Act for enforcement of the order dated 29.05.2009 with the only grievance that the appellant/OP was required to raise the œBill? for the dues which the respondent/complainant was required to pay, however the alleged œBill? raised by the appellant is not a œBill? issued in accordance with formal and substantial requirements of law, therefore, it cannot be said to be a œBill?.
5) On the other hand the appellant/OP submitted before the District Forum that due to permanent disconnection remarks no bill could have been raised by them through the system as per final reading of 3591 KVAH found at the removal of the meter minus already charged unit, a manually prepared bill was raised for 1459 KWH units (1786 KVAH Unit) for an amount of Rs. 37,908/- which is mentioned in the bill as per actual consumption up to 03.06.2009, therefore the order has been fully complied with.
6) The District Forum after hearing the arguments of both the parties came to the conclusion that the œBill? delivered to the respondent/complainant is not in consistent with formal and substantial requirements of regulation 12 of DERC (performance standard-metering and billing) regulation 2002.
Regulation 12 (chapter 4 which covers the billing is as follows:-œ12. General “ (i) The licensee shall notify billing and payment Schedule areawise, Districtwise or Circlewise as may be decided by the licensee.
(ii) The licensee shall raise the bill for every billing cycle based on actual meter readings. The bills sent to consumers by the licensee should reflect details, e.g. current and last meter readings, rate, quantity of electricity consumed during the cycle, total amount to be paid for current consumption and details of past arrears, if any, last date for payment, etc.
(iii) Delivery of each bill shall be effected at least 15 days before the last day for payment of the bill.
(iv) Provisional billing (based on average consumption) shall not be more than one billing cycle. In case meter is rendered inaccessible for two consecutive billing cycles, action as per regulation 18 shall be followed.?
7) The District Forum observed that merely writing on a paper that œBill? amounting to Rs. 37,908/- is payable up to final reading 3591 KVAH is not a œBill? in accordance with the provisions of regulations 12 referred above and came to the conclusion that OP is in cross violation of the order passed by District Forum North-West Shalimar Bagh, Delhi on 25.05.2009 as regulation 12 refer to above is mandatory in nature, and the appellant/OP even after filing of the application by the complainant/respondent under section 27 of the act on 24.08.2009 i.e. even after lapes of two years appellant/OP did not supply the bill in accordance with the provisions of regulation 12 and the district forum further observed that if the computer system of the appellant/OP was not generating bill as required under the law, OP could have supplied manually prepared bill in conformity with requirements of regulation. But, the appellant/OP did not do so and the District Forum further came to the conclusion that the appellant/OP did not took any steps to update its computer system to cope-up with varied situation created by the decisions of legal foras or settlement with consumer, which shows that appellant/OP was quite indifferent and oblivious not only to the mandatory provisions of law and its obligation to give effect to them but also to the order of the district forum. The conduct of OP is in defiance not only of regulation 12 referred to above but is also the violation of the order dt. 29.05.2009 passed by the District Forum North West, New Delhi in not supplying the bill as per the provisions and directed the appellant/OP to raise a bill on the applicant in conformity with formal and substantial requirement of bill as mandated by regulation 12 of DERC (performance standard-metering and billing) regulation 2002 and further directed to issue notice to chief executive officer of OP/appellant to appear before the forum personally and show cause as to why proceedings under section 27 (1) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 should not be initiated against him. The District Forum further ordered chief executive officer of OP to appear in person before the forum and file compliance report on 05.06.2012.
8) That is what brought the appellant/OP in appeal before this Commission.
9) Registered notice under AD cover was issued to the respondent/complainant who appeared and contested the appeal.
10) The Commission vide order dt. 25.05.2012 heard on the stay application of the appellant and stayed further proceedings in execution case No. 108/09 with District Forum (North) Tis Hazari, Delhi till further orders.
11) The appellant/OP took the ground that the District Forum erred in coming to the conclusion that the appellant has not complied with the orders dt. 29.05.2004 because they had complied the settlement as ordered in the order dt. 29.05.2009 of the District Forum and in terms of the said directions they had already removed the meter, took the final reading after removal of the meter and raised the bill on the basis of the reading at the time of removal of the meter and also provided the new connection in the name of the respondent and nothing more is required to be done by the appellant as per the said order.
12) The appellant further stated that the respondent had also deposited the sum of Rs. 37,908/- as raised by the appellant pursuant to the direction contained in the order dt. 29.05.2009 without any demure or protest and the respondent never disputed the amount raised by them. Appellant further stated that the bill on the printed proforma could not be raised due to the reason that the supply was initially disconnected in March 2008 and thereafter the same was reconnected by the respondent illegally twice and further respondent never allowed the OP/appellant to remove the meter and to take the final reading and no œBill? for the relevant periods of dispute could be generated through computerised system as the customised settlement between the parties required manual calculation of amounts and adjustment in terms of settlement and different types of settlement as per different orders of the forum and courts are not taken by the software used by them which necessitate the supply of manual œBill? and in the circumstances stated above the notice under section 27 is not required to be issued against their chief executive officer and personal appearance of chief executing officer is uncalled for, because it is well settled law that the senior officer of the company should not be called by the courts/forums for no reason unless and until the senior officer are personally liable for any misdoing.
13) The respondent/complainants/DH contented that she deposited the amount of Rs. 37,908/- raised by the appellant merely on a paper and claiming that to be œBill? as per order dt. 29.05.2009 of the District Forum because she had to get the new connection and without electricity nobody could carry on their life and formally contested that the œBill? issued to her should have been issued as per requirements of DERC regulations 12 of 2002, so that things should have been clear to her regarding the meter reading last taken and reading taken at the time of removal of the meter so that a consumer could know whether the charges on the basis of slab actually charged are correct or not. The œBill? should have shown the last date of payment as well as other informations which are required to be provided under the bill
14) On hearing the arguments of both the parties and going through the observation made by the District Forum in its order dt. 22.05.2012 which is under challenge, it is true that the appellant should have delivered the œBill? in accordance with the provisions of DERC regulation 12 of 2002 and if at all it was not possible to generate the bill through the computer system the appellant should have supplied the manually prepared œBill? in conformity with requirements of the regulations 12, but appellant failed to do so, even inspite of lapse of two years of pendency of the execution application before the District Forum and went on lingering on such a small matter which has definitely caused harassment to the respondent/complainant/DH, neither appellant took any steps to update its computer system (software) to cope-up with various situation created by decisions of Legal Foras and settlements with the consumers and the observation of the District Forum in this respect that œOP was quite indifferent and oblivious not only to the mandatory provisions of the law and its obligations to them to give effect to them but also to the order of District Forum? is absolutely correct and we are also of the considered opinion that the appellant should take proper steps in this direction immediately and law department of the appellant shall apprise the chief executive officer of these observation of this Commission and shall file compliance report to this effect before the District Forum (North) Tis Hazari, Delhi as well as to this Commission within 15 days of receipt of these orders.15) As during the course of arguments Ld. Senior Counsel Sh. Kirti Uppal on behalf of the Chief Executive Officer Tata Power, Delhi Distribution Pvt. Ltd. formally known as North Delhi Power Ltd. has apologised for the conduct of the staff of the company for not providing the bill in manual form as per DERC regulation 12 of 2002 and submitted the œBill? as per proforma prescribed by DERC for Rs. 37,908/- and also handed over a copy of the same to the respondent/complainant/DH and has submitted that the copy of the same had also been filed with the District Forum (North) Tis Hazari, Delhi.
16) In these circumstances we are of the view that there is no need to issue notice by District Forum (North) Tis Hazari, Delhi under section 27 (1) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 to Chief Executive Officer of the appellant to appear in person in view of the submissions made by Ld. Senior Counsel for the appellant at bar that they had filed the manually prepared œBill? of Rs. 37,908/- on the prescribed proforma as per DERC regulation 12 of 2002 before the District Forum otherwise also top most officers of any departments/cos should only be called when they are personally liable for any misdoing otherwise emphasis should be made to call only the concerned/responsible officers.17) With this, the District Forum is accordingly directed to proceed further as per law in the execution case No. 108/09 on the basis of the fresh manually prepared œBills? filed before them.
18) The appellant had unnecessarily dragged the respondent/complainant/DH to the State Commission only for not providing the œBill? as per laid down regulation and could not file the manually prepared bill even after lapse of more than two years as per specified regulations for which respondent/complainant/DH rightfully entitled. Appellant are therefore, burdened with the costs of Rs. 5,000/-. This amount shall be paid by the appellant to the respondent/complainant/DH before the District Forum (North) Tis Hazari, on the next date of hearing.19) Appeal is accordingly partly allowed and both the parties are directed to appear before the District Forum (North) Tis Hazari on 25.02.2014 for further proceedings in case No. 108/09. Appellant are also directed to file compliance report as per Para 14 of this order.
20) Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per law and one copy be sent to the District Forum (North), Tis Hazari, Delhi and thereafter case file be consigned to record room.
21) FDR if any deposited by the appellant be returned to them as per rules.
Announced on 21th day of January 2014.