Sub-divisional Officer and Another Vs. Jagir Singh - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
consumer protection act, 1986 - section 2(1)(g) - cases referred: 1. municipal corporation of delhi v. m/s. ajanta iron and steel company (private) limited, 40 (1990) dlt 440 (sc)=1990 ccc 647 (sc). (referred) [para 5] 2. hukam singh v. haryana state electricity board, 1995 (1) ccc 188 (p and h). (referred) [para 5] 3. tarsem singh v. punjab state electricity board, 2002 (2) ccc 584 (p and h). (referred) [para 5] comparative citations: 2006 (2) cpr 280, 2006 (1) cpj 566mrs. devinderjit dhatt, member: 1. this appellate jurisdiction of this commission has been invoked against the order dated 14.2.2005 passed by district consumer disputes redressal forum-i, u.t., chandigarh in complaint case no. 488 of 2003. the contextual facts in brief are as under. 2. the respondent/complainant sh. jagir singh filed the complaint in the forum on account of inflated electricity bills supplied by the appellant/op department for certain periods. the complainant has averred that he received the bill for the period 9.12.2001 to 9.2.2002 showing consumption of 813 units raising an amount of rs. 1,934. he visited the office of appellant for the rectification and he after due verification was asked to pay only rs. 900 in lumpsum against the bill. the complainant has stated that though he considered this amount to be on the higher side but it was paid under protest by him. the next bill for the period 9.2.2002 to 9.4.2002 showing consumption of 1069 units was served. the respondent/complainant again represented to the op department and brought it to notice of op that even though his meter has been replaced consequent to inflated readings but still the reading of new meter is not commensurate with the consumption of electricity by him, as shown in the previous usage pattern, through the earlier bills. the complainant has stated that on 7.5.2002, the electric supply to his premises was disconnected without any notice. however, inspite of disconnection, he was served the bill for the period 9.6.2002 to 9.8.2002 showing consumption of 61 units and again he was asked by the officials of the op department to deposit rs. 1,000 on average basis so that the supply of electricity could be restored. the respondent/complainant has submitted that he deposited rs. 1,000 as he was not left with any option. it has been alleged that after a number of complaints, his electricity meter was replaced but the earlier bills raised on the basis of the reading from the defective meter were not revised or modified. the bill for the period 9.8.2002 to 9.10.2002 showing consumption of 27 units for an amount of rs. 430 was raised. thereafter the bill for the period 9.10.2002 to 9.12.2002 was for consumption of 1 unit of electricity but the amount due was shown as rs. 400. the respondent/complainant has alleged that the consumption shown by this replaced meter was also not in accordance to the usage as shown in the previous bills which proved his point that the replaced meter was also defective. in support of his averment of low consumption, the respondent/complainant has stated that he alone is occupying the premises and his family members are staying in a village, situated in district karnal. further he being a government servant employed in haryana civil secretariat, chandigarh and is in his office during office hours i.e. from 8.30 a.m. to 5.30 p.m. and consumption for this period would automatically be nil. it has also been alleged that the previous defective meter has not been tested in any laboratory and wrong bills were issued to him and he was forced to deposit inflated amount. the respondent/complainant has submitted that though as per the laws of electricity department, 24 hours notice is required to be served before disconnection. no such notice was served upon him but to his utter shock bill for the period from 9.12.2002 to 9.2.2003 for rs. 280 was issued to him inspite of the fact that supply of electricity to his house was disconnected during this period. the respondent/complainant has alleged that he had to run from pillar to post to get the electricity connected and also to get revised/corrected bills but he was made to suffer due to irresponsible and negligent attitude of ops. a prayer has been made for issuance of a direction to restore the electricity supply, to replace the defective meter with a new one after testing the same, to rectify the inflated bills and adjust the excess amount paid in the future bills. rs. 10,000 on account of mental agony and harassment and rs. 5,000 towards litigation have also been claimed. 3. in the reply filed by s.d.o electricity, sub-division no. 10, sector 40-b, chandigarh on behalf of both the ops, it has been stated that the bill for the period from 5.9.2001 to 9.10.2001 was for one month, based on minimum charges and was inclusive of meter rent and service charges. the next bill for the period from october, 2001 to december, 2001 was also on the basis of minimum charges showing consumption of only 24 units. but the bills for the period december, 2001 to february, 2002 for the amount of rs. 2,120 issued to the consumer for 873 units was based on actual consumption recorded by the meter but he was allowed to deposit rs. 900 as part payment as he was unable to deposit the full amount. it is further stated that bill for the period february, 2002 to april, 2002 for 1069 units was for an amount of rs. 4,791, which included the arrears of previous bills issued on 2.5.2002. the next bill for april, 2002 to june, 2002 recorded a consumption of 475 units raising the amount of rs. 4,968 and the next bill for the period june, 2002 to august, 2002 showed 61 units amounting to rs. 5,307 and this bill also included the arrears of previous bills amount of rs. 4,968. the ops have stated that again a payment of rs. 1,000 was allowed to be made by the complainant as he was unable to pay the full amount. the next bill for the period august, 2002 to october, 2002 for the amount of rs. 6,532 was issued and this bill included a sum of rs. 1,889 being the amount charged on average basis due to the fact that he was charged for less consumption in the past but on the request of the complainant he was allowed to deposit rs. 430 towards part payment. the next bill for the period october, 2002 to december, 2002 amounting to rs. 6,560 included the arrears amounting to rs. 6,226 but the complainant deposited only rs. 400 on the basis of minimum charges being only one unit consumption. the appellants/ops have stated that the accuracy of meter no. chse-0791 installed at the premises of the complainant was challenged by the respondent/complainant and as per report (brought on record vide annexure r-8) the meter was shown to be slow by 3.57% slow but it was within the permissible limit and on this account rs. 1,889 were refunded to the complainant and same has been reflected in the bills issued on 2.3.2003 brought on record vide annexures r-5 to r-7. the appellants have alleged that though the meter was correct but it was replaced at the request of the customer for his satisfaction. the bills are issued as per record of consumption by the meter and not on the factum of residence of the family members. the appellants have further stated that rs. 1,889 charged in excess from the complainant has been refunded to him. hence he is not justified in raising any dispute on the billing and has to pay the amount for the consumption of electricity. the allegations regarding his representation or complaints not being attended to have been denied and it has been stated that he was allowed to remit the part payments against the huge amounts and even the meter was replaced just to satisfy the customer. the disconnection of electricity was due to non-payment of the bills. a prayer has been made to dismiss the complaint. 4. in evidence, the appellant i.e. sh. dharam singh, s.d.o. electricity operation sub-division no. 10, chandigarh has filed his detailed affidavit whereas sh. jagir singh respondent has filed his affidavit along with annexures c-1 to c-12. 5. in support of the case, the appellant has cited the following case laws: (1) 40 (1990) dlt 440 (sc)=1990 civil court cases 647 (s.c) titled “municipal corporation of delhi v. m/s. ajanta iron and steel company (private) limited.” (2) 1995 (1) civil court cases 188 (pandh) titled “hukam singh v. haryana state electricity board.” (3) 2002 (2) civil court cases 584 (pandh) titled “tarsem singh v. punjab state electricity board.” 6. the district forum accepted the complaint partly and directed the op department to charge on minimum basis for the disputed period of february, 2002 to august, 2002 and refund the excess amounts charged from the complainant. 7. aggrieved against the order of the district forum, the present appeal is filed by the op department pleading inter alia that the bills for the period 9.2.2002 to 9.4.2002 showed consumption of 1069 units, the bill for the period april, 2002 to june, 2002 was for 475 units and for the period 2.6.2002 to 2.8.2002 showing consumption of 61 units. the appellants have averred that all the above bills were issued based on his actual consumption of electricity, hence respondent/complainant was liable to pay and the district forum was in error in holding that the respondent/complainant has been wrongly charged for the period february, 2002 to august, 2002. the forum failed to appreciate that the accuracy of the meter was disputed by the complainant and when checked it was found slow by 3.5790%. since the same was under the permissible limit, excess amount of rs.1,289 was refunded to the complainant in the bill issued on 2.3.2003. even after receiving the refund, the respondent/complainant kept on disputing the meter reading but did not approach the electrical inspector under section 26 clause 6 of electricity act and rather chose to file the complaint in the forum and the same is wrong and illegal. the factum of the respondent/complainant residing alone on the premises in question has not been proved by him through any cogent evidence. the order of the district forum has been assailed on the ground wherein it held the appellants deficient in services rendered to the complainant in spite of the fact that no such evidence proving the same was brought on record by the respondent. the appellant-department has also challenged the order of the district forum on the ground that the relevant rules and regulations have not been taken into consideration while deciding the complaint. a prayer has been made to accept the appeal and set aside the order of the forum in the interest of justice. 8. adverting to the merit of the appeal, a perusal of record of the case, pleadings and rival contentions of both the parties it is evident that the billing pattern issued to the complainant has been drastically different for the different periods and the bill raised for before the disputed period were as low as rs. 164 and for rs. 306. however, the next bill for the period 9.12.2001 to 9.2.2002 and 9.2.2002 to 9.4.2002 were for much higher amounts. it is also admitted by the appellants that the accuracy of the meter was disputed and a new meter was installed on the request of respondent/complainant. however we find merit in the contention of the respondent/complainant that due to fault in the meter the amount of rs. 1,889 was refunded to him in the bill dated 2.3.2003. the learned government pleader representing the department and the official who assisted him in the commission, were unable to show that on what basis the calculation of this amount of rs. 1,889 was arrived at. as per provisions of electricity act, the appellants were required to get the meter tested from the chief electrical inspector and charge the complainant as per consumption after the accuracy of the meter installed at the premises was certified. it has been laid down in section 26(6) of the electricity act that the correctness of the meter can be certified by the electrical inspector on application of either party, the aforesaid act mandates that in the event of meter being defective and giving incorrect reading the electrical inspector shall estimate the energy supplied to the consumer during the disputed period and even if the meter is found to be incorrect or defective, the consumer cannot be charged beyond six months of this disputed period. as has been proved on the record that though appellant department got the meter tested, however there is nothing on record to rebut the allegation of the complainants. the appellants have not demonstrated from any document that the accuracy of the meter was tested by chief electrical inspector as mandated by the act or the complainant was informed about the checking/testing of his meter and the result of the check . it proves the version of the complainant that and the appellant department cannot unjustifiably raise the inflated amounts as the meter reading has not been proved to be correct and as per actual consumption. hence, the impugned order of the district forum accepting the complaint partly is upheld, as the department has not been able to demonstrate that due procedure as laid down in the electricity act was followed or the charges levied on the basis of reading of the meter were accurate. in view of the above discussion, the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed. the appellant-ops are directed to comply with the order of the district forum within one month from the receipt of copy of this order. 9. appeal dismissed. 10. copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.