Appeal case No.3057/2002(HRY)/RBT/1229/2008

Date of decision :16.11.2009





1. Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., through its Asstt. Executive Engineer, Operation, Sub-Division No.1, District Rohtak.

2.. Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Panchkula through its Chairman

…Appellants
Versus
Mahant Chand Nath Yogi through its General Power of Attorney Baba Jagdish Nath r/o Math Asthal Bohar, Tehsil and District Rohtak.


…Respondent



Appeal U/s 15 of Consumer Protection Act,1986 against

order dated 21.11.2002 passed by Consumer Disputes

Redressal Forum- Rohtak.



BEFORE : Hon’ble Mr.Justice Pritam Pal, President

Maj.Gen.S.P.Kapoor (Retd.),Member

Mrs. Neena Sandhu,Member



Present: Sh. Surinder Chaudhary, advocate for appellants.

Sh.Ravinder Rana, advocate for respondent.



JUDGMENT

16.11.2009



Justice Pritam Pal, President



1. This appeal by opposite parties is directed against the order dated 21.11.2002 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum- Rohtak whereby while disposing of the complaint of respondent/Complainant bearing No.353 of 2001, appellants were held entitled to charge 50% of the bill amount i.e. Rs.5050/- and remaining amount of Rs.5050/- was ordered to be refunded to the complainant within a period of 60 days from passing of the impugned order.

The parties in this judgment hereinafter shall be referred to as per their ranking before the District Forum.

2. In nutshell, suffice it to say that an electric connection bearing A/C No.ABSP-4 was installed in the name of Mahant Shreo Nath and after his death, complainant being his legal heir was consuming the electricity supplied by opposite parties. It was alleged that the bill No.6681 dated 13.6.2001 served upon complainant by OPs for a sum of Rs.27025/- included a sum of Rs.10099/- on account of additional surcharge. However, no detail of the said amount was mentioned in the bill. According to the complainant, the said amount was illegal and arbitrary as all the bills were being paid regularly in time and the connection was installed for residential purpose and only one person was using the electricity. However, the complainant to avoid disconnection, deposited the bill and requested OPs to refund the excess amount of Rs.10099/- but to no effect. Hence, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, complainant filed complaint before the District Consumer Forum.

3. On the other hand, the case of OPs before the District Forum was that the connection was released in the name of Mahant Serio Nath and complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint. It was further stated that the electric meter in question was burnt in the month of February,2000 which was changed on 17.4.2000 vide MCO No.11/2 dated 10.4.2000. It was pleaded that the said meter of the complainant was showing very less consumption for the period February to April,2000 and this fact was noticed by the internal audit department of OPs and as such the account of complainant was overhauled on the basis of electricity consumption of the newly installed meter for the period from Feb,2001 to April,2001 and the difference of Rs.10099/- was charged which the complainant had deposited without any protest. Hence, it was pleaded that there was nothing wrong in it and the complaint was liable to be dismissed with costs.

4. The District Consumer Forum after going through the evidence and hearing counsel for the parties came to the conclusion that since OPs have taken into consideration the data of subsequent period and ignored the data of previous year, so they are entitled to charge 50% of the disputed amount i.e. Rs.5050/- and the remaining amount of Rs.5050/- would be refunded to the complainant. This is how feeling aggrieved against the said order, opposite parties had filed appeal before the Haryana State Consumer Commission which has now been transferred to this Commission under the directions of Hon’ble National Commission.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the file carefully. The learned counsel for appellants/OPs argued that the electric meter installed at the premises of complainant was defective/burnt which was changed on 17.4.2000. The said meter was showing less consumption and this fact was noticed by the internal audit department of the OPs and pointed out the matter through half-margin NO.69 dated 24.4.2001 and as such account of complainant was overhauled on the basis of electricity consumption of the newly installed meter and the amount of Rs.10099/- was rightly charged from the complainant.

6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the entire matter and also perused the Half Margin of Internal Audit Department, whose copy is placed on file which shows that the meter was defective/burnt and the same had been replaced against MCO No.11/3 dated 10.4.2000 and account for the months of Feb to April,2000 was overhauled on the average basis of the reading of the new meter for the months of Feb,2001 to April,2001. It is not mentioned by the appellants by filing an affidavit of some responsible official as to how the department found the meter to be defective and showing less consumption. Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act,1910 states that when a dispute arises regarding the correctness or incorrectness of the meter, then the matter has to be decided by an Electrical Inspector and then on the basis of decision of the Electrical Inspector, the Consumer has to be charged. However, no such procedure has been adopted in the instant case. There is no evidence on file that the meter was found to be defective and it was got checked from the M&P Lab or the same had been checked by fixing a parallel meter after giving notice to the consumer. In the absence of any proof of the meter being defective , the OPs were not competent to charge the complainant on average basis as the method adopted by the department was not in accordance with Section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act,1910 and the OPs cannot charge the complainant simply on the basis of internal audit report without any basis.

In this view of our foregoing discussion, we find that the impugned order dated 21.11.2002 is well reasoned and justified in the given facts and circumstances of case. Consequently the appeal fails and stands dismissed.

Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to record room.

Appeal case No.2017/2002/Hry/RBT/1342/2009

Date of decision :9.11.2009

1. Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, through its Asstt. Executive Engineer, OP Sub Division NO.1, Radaur Road, Jagadhri.

2. Executive Engineer (OP) Sub-Division No.1, UHBVN Radaur road, Yamunanagar.

3. Chairman, Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Shakti Bhawan, Panchkula.

….…Appellants

V E R S U S

M/s Woody Farm village Jorion, Radaur Road, Yamunanagar, through the sole proprietor Shri Suman Kumar son of Shri Madan Gopal, resident of House NO.1516, Tagore Garden, Yamunanagar.

..…Respondent

Appeal U/s 15 of Consumer Protection Act,1986 against

order dated 8.8.22002 passed by Consumer Disputes

Redressal Forum,Jagadhri



Argued by : Sh.Akshay Jain, advocate for the appellants.



BEFORE : Hon’ble Mr.Justice Pritam Pal, President

Maj.Gen.S.P.Kapoor (Retd.),Member

Mrs. Neena Sandhu,Member


JUDGMENT

9.11.2009



Justice Pritam Pal, President



1. This appeal by Opposite parties has been directed against the order dated 8.8.2002 passed by District Consumer Forum, Jagadhari whereby complaint filed by the complainant firm M/s Woody Farm was allowed in the following terms ;

“In our view the penalty has illegally been imposed upon the complainant which is hereby quashed. The respondents are hereby directed to refund the amount already deposited by the complainant, if any, towards this penalty amount alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of deposit till the date of realization of amount within one month from the date of this order. The account of the complainant be also corrected within one month from the date of this order, otherwise penal action under Section 27 of the Act will be initiated against the respondents.”



2.. In nutshell, the brief facts of the case are that complainant was having electric connection bearing A/c No.MSI-172 installed in its factory premises with sanctioned load of 29.8 KVA . The complainant was making the payment of electricity bills regularly without any default and nothing was due towards it. In the month February,2000 the electric meter installed in the premises of complainant firm got burnt and an application for replacement of the same was moved by the complainant which was removed by OPs. At that time all the seals of meter were found OK and there was no irregularity or illegality on the part of complainant. However, complainant was astonished to receive memo No.4978 dated 22.5.2000 vide which an illegal amount of Rs.68131/- had been demanded on the plea that the seals of the previous meter were found tempered. Complainant approached OPs and stated that the seals of the electric meter were fixed by the M& P Lab at the time of installation and subsequently meter was being checked by the staff from time to time and the seals were found OK. It was alleged that no opportunity was afforded to the complainant before imposing the penalty and further consumption shown by the previous meter and new meter was the same, so, there was irregularity and the penalty imposed was illegal and liable to be set aside. The request of the complainant to waive of the penalty was not acceded to ,hence, complaint was filed before the District Consumer Forum.

3. On the other hand the case of OPs before the District Forum was that the consumer had applied for extension of load from 15.10 KW to 29.494 KW during the month of 11/99 and the load was sanctioned as per Nigam Rules on 30.11.1999. As the load of consumer was extended and the monthly consumption had to be increased due to heavy load, the consumer fiddled with the meter to conceal the true facts for increase of consumption due to extended load. After fiddling with the meter it moved an application for replacement of the burnt meter which was sent to M& T laboratory UHBVN Ltd Yamunanagar and Additional Executive Engineer of M& T Laboratory after inspecting the meter declared the case of theft vide memo NO.1034 dated 10.5.2000. It was pleaded that complainant was liable to pay the penalty amount and there was no deficiency on the part of OPs.

4. After hearing counsel for the parties, the District Consumer forum allowed the complaint as indicated in the opening part of this judgment. This is how feeling aggrieved, opposite parties had filed appeal before the Haryana State Consumer commission which has now been transferred to this Commission under the directions of Hon’ble National Commission.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for appellants and perused the file carefully. It is contended on behalf of appellants/OPs that the premises of the complainant was checked by a checking party and found all M&T seals tampered with and an unauthorized load was also found,so, penalty of Rs.68,131- was imposed. Admittedly the electric meter was replaced but OPs have not placed on file any document signed by any representative of the complainant showing that the meter was replaced in his presence and the seals were found tampered with at that time. The OPs have not placed on file any notice which was served upon the complainant intimating about the checking of meter by the M&T laboratory which was to be done in the presence of the consumer . OPs have placed on file only the memo from Additional XEN M&T Lab stating that all the M&T seals were found tempered. It is not mentioned in it, as to how M&T department had got checked the meter. There is no mention in it whether anyone on behalf of complainant was present when the meter was checked because the report of M&T department does not bear signature of any representative of complainant. From the mere fact that the officials of M& T laboratory had checked the meter, it cannot be said that they checked the meter in accordance with rules and regulation of the Indian Electricity Act. Again at the cost of repetition, we may state that from the mere fact that seals were tampered with is no ground for holding that there was commissioning of theft of electric energy. The officials of the OPs had been taking reading regularly and they never noticed that there was tampering with seals. Thus, whole thing had been done in a perfunctory manner.

6. We have perused the impugned order and other material brought on file and find that the order dated 8.8.2002 passed by the District Consumer Forum is well reasoned and justified in the given facts and circumstances. We concur with the reasoning given by the District Forum and hold that there is no force in the appeal. Consequently, the same is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to record room.

Appeal case No.2818/2002(HRY)/RBT/1157/2008

Date of decision :6.11.2009


1. Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., through its Sub-

Divisional Officer, Sub-division, Model Town, Panipat



2.. XEN, City Division, UHBVNL/HVPNL, Power house, Gohana Road,

Panipat.



3.. Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Panchkula through its

Chairman, shakti Bhawan, Sector-6 Panchkula.

…Appellants
Versus
M/s Shri Vardhman Oil Refinery, Gohana Road, Panipat through Sh.Raj Bhaj, son of late Sh.Chunni Lal, resident of 677-R, Model Town, Panipat.


…Respondent


Appeal U/s 15 of Consumer Protection Act,1986 against

order dated 6.9.2002 passed by Consumer Disputes

Redressal Forum- Panipat.

BEFORE : Hon’ble Mr.Justice Pritam Pal, President

Maj.Gen.S.P.Kapoor (Retd.),Member

Mrs. Neena Sandhu,Member



Present: None for the appellants.

Ms.Vibha, advocate for the respondent.

JUDGMENT

6.11.2009
Justice Pritam Pal, President

1. This appeal by opposite parties is directed against the order dated 6.9.2002 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum- Panipat whereby complaint filed by the complainant firm M/s Shri Vardhman Oil Refinery was allowed in the following terms ;

“Hence, we hereby direct the respondents not to demand /charge the arrear since 23.4.98 to 27.4.2001 and the 40% amount of the disputed amount of Rs.3,24,022/- already deposited by the petitioner shall be adjusted by the respondents in the forthcoming bills of the petitioner. Hence, we hereby quash the memos No.356 dated 27.3.2001 and 447 dated 17.4.2001.”

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that initially an electricity connection bearing A/c No.SM5-23 of LS category was issued in the name of complainant firm. Subsequently the complainant felt the necessity of less power than that of LS connection, so, it applied to opposite parties for conversion of LS connection into MS connection which was allowed vide letter dated 26.2.98 and OPs sent intimation to the complainant for charges of power from LS to MS category on 23.4.1998. It was alleged that thereafter complainant regularly made payment of the bills which were issued by OPs from time to time but vide memo No.447 dated 17.4.2001 OPs demanded a sum of Rs.3,24,022/- for the period from April,98 to February,2001 on account of less billing. On enquiry, it was told to the complainant that the multiplier factor of 1.5 had been ignored with effect from the date of category change i.e. 23.4.98 to 10.9.99 as well as w.e.f. Nov.,99 to Feb.,2001 and by mistake the multiplier factor of 1.0 was applied. The complainant then requested OPs to supply the report of M&P department for the above said period alongwith laboratory testing report. According to the complainant, the representatives of OPs used to take meter reading since beginning and the meter was being checked by the officer of the rank of SDO and MS connection was being periodically checked after every six months by the M& P department. It was pleaded that the complainant had suffered huge losses and the unit had been declared sick, so, it was unable to make payment of huge amount of the bill at that stage.

3. On the other hand, the case of OPs before the District Forum was that the multiplier factor of 1.5 which was to be applied in the case of complainant from the date of installation i.e. 23.4.98 could not be taken into account and it was not entered in the ledger and OPs continued to charge the electricity bills on the basis of 1.0 multiplier only instead of 1.5 but this mistake/error came to the notice of OP NO.2 while preparing the bill of Feb. ,2001 from the report of XEN, M&P Karnal after its checking dated 6.2.2001 and due to the said error, less amount of Rs.3,24,022/- had been charged from the complainant for which it was liable to pay the same. The complainant was given notices bearing NOs.356 dated 17.3.2001 and No.447 dated 17.4.2001 in that regard. It was pleaded that the complainant had consumed more electricity but had paid less amount for the same, so, complainant was liable to pay the amount of Rs.3,24,022/-.

4. The District Consumer Forum after obtaining evidence and hearing counsel for the parties allowed the complaint as indicated in the opening part of this judgment. This is how feeling aggrieved, opposite parties had filed appeal before the Haryana State Consumer Commission which has now been transferred to this Commission under the directions of Hon’ble National Commission.

5. It is pertinent to note here that inspite of ample opportunities having been given to the appellant i.e. Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd none was appearing in this appeal for the last five dates i.e. 6.1.2009, 10.3.2009,23.4.2009, 17.7.2009 and 5.11.2009 . However, earlier one Mr. Rohit Dheer, advocate and Mr. S.K. Verma, advocate proxy counsel for Ms. Sheena Sura, advocate had appeared on behalf of the appellant on 11.8.2008 and 17.9.2008 respectively. Today also none appeared on behalf of appellant, so, this appeal was heard ex parte. It all goes a longway to show that the appeals filed by Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. pending before this Commission are not being pursued seriously.

6. Today before us the learned counsel for complainant putforth twofold arguments ; at the first place she argued that the inflated bill of huge amount of Rs.3,24,022/- was sent vide memo No.447 in the month of April,2001 and it related to the period from April,98 to Feb.,2001,so, sending such bill after a lapse of about more than three years amounted to deficiency in service on the part of appellants/OPs and as such they are not entitled to recover the said amount. At the same time, it was also argued that raising of huge bill was the result of patent mistake committed by meter reader or Junior Engineer who was also visiting the premises of complainant. After putting-forth twofold arguments, counsel for complainant supported the observations made in the impugned order by the District Consumer Forum. In support of her points of arguments reliance was also placed upon an authority of H.P.State Consumer Commission in Indus Hospital Vs HPSEB through its Secretary and another 2005(2)CPC 549.

7. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions and also gone through the file and above said ruling, the facts and circumstances of which are quite at variance from the facts of the case in hand. We find no force in the above pleas putforth on behalf of complainant, inasmuch-as here in the instant case the only fault of the appellants which is a corporation is that inflated bill of Rs.3,24,022/- was sent by its officials after detecting the mistake of non-applying the correct multiplier factor. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant is a registered unit of manufacturing Vanaspati Ghee and refined oil. It had applied for LT connection to MT connection and after the sanction of this category connection, multiplier factor of the meter in question was to be applied at 1.5 instead of 1.0 and due to some bonafide mistake or negligence or in connivance with the consumer it was not being applied as per rules and regulations of the Corporation. This multiplier factor was to be applied after the change of connection category with effect from 23.4.1998 to 2/2001. This mistake could be detected during the checking made by the XEN M&P Karnal on 6.2.2001. This is how by applying the correct multiplier factor of 1.5 the bills of Rs.3,24,022/- was sent for the consumed units. Admittedly on the asking of the Commission the learned counsel for complainant could not point out any wrong or mistake in applying the multiplier factor of 1.5 or consumption of power units. All this goes a longway to show that the demand mentioned in the bill in question was in consonance with the use of electricity and as per rules and regulations on the subject. No doubt the delay occurred in raising the bill in question was due to fault of the concerned officials of the OPs for the reasons best known to them but on account of this fault of delinquent officials, the corporation cannot be allowed to suffer loss.

8. As observed above, it is not disputed before us that there was any wrong in the application of multiplier factor and consumption of power units by the complainant. Thus, taking an overall view and considering the copies of checking report, notice, ledger and PDCO and also consumption data which are attached as Annexure A to F respectively with the file, we have no option but to hold that the District Consumer Forum has not appreciated the material brought before it in right perspective.

9. Hence, the impugned order is set aside and consequently the appeal is accepted and complaint is dismissed. However, before parting with this order, we give liberty to the complainant to deposit the amount incorporated in the bill in question in three equal installments within a period of six months from the date, copy of this order is received.

Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to record room.

Appeal case No.888/2002(HRY)/RBT/1462/2008

Date of decision :4.11.2009





1. Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., through its Sub-

Divisional Officer, Sub-division, Assandh, Tehsil Karnal.



2.. Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. through its Chairman, shakti

Bhawan, Panchkula.

…Appellants
Versus
Karam Singh son of Sh.Arjan Singh,resident of village Jaisingpura, Tehsil & District Karnal.
…Respondent



Appeal U/s 15 of Consumer Protection Act,1986 against

order dated 26.02.2002 passed by Consumer Disputes

Redressal Forum- Karnal.



BEFORE : Hon’ble Mr.Justice Pritam Pal, President

Maj.Gen.S.P.Kapoor (Retd.),Member

Mrs. Neena Sandhu,Member



Present: Sh. Varun Chawla, advocate for appellants.



JUDGMENT

4.11.2009



Justice Pritam Pal, President



1. This appeal by opposite parties is directed against the order dated 26.2.2002 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum- Karnal whereby while disposing of the complaint of Sh.Karam Singh, respondent/Complainant , he was held liable to pay the energy charges for the period from 10/94 to 3/2001.

2. In nutshell, suffice it to say that an electric connection bearing A/C No.JH-2/159 in the name of complainant was installed at his tubewell. It was alleged that in the year 1994 the said tubewell connection was changed by OP NO.2 in the name of his brother Mohinder Singh and as such civil suit NO.680 dated 6.10.94 was filed by the complainant which was decreed in his favour vide order dated 4.12.2000 and the court declared the transfer of the tubewell connection illegal. Subsequently OP NO.2 again transferred the said tubewell connection in the name of complainant on 12.3.2001 and in this way his brother Mohinder Singh had used the tubewell connection during the period from Oct.,94 to March,2001. Thereafter, complainant approached OP NO.2 for extending his load from 3 BHP to 5BHP but OP NO.2 insisted upon the deposit of Rs.52359/- outstanding against the said tubewell for the period 10/94 to 3/2001. Complainant requested not to charge the said amount fjrom him as he did not use the tubewell during the said period but OP NO.2 did not accede to his request. Hence, complainant filed complaint before the District Consumer Forum.

3. On the other hand, the case of OPs before the District Forum was that the brother of complainant Sh.Mohinder Singh got the said electric connection changed in his name by way of misrepresentation and false documents. It was pleaded that it was only a paper transaction and the tubewell connection remained at the same site where it was installed before the change of name and it was being used by the complainant. However, after the decree of civil suit the connection had been changed in the name of complainant and an amount of Rs.45033/- was outstanding against the complainant upto November,2001. It was pleaded that complainant was liable to pay the above said amount because the connection was exclusively used by the complainant during the period of change of name and as such he was liable to pay the amount.

4. The District Consumer Forum after obtaining evidence and hearing counsel for the parties came to the conclusion that when the complainant had used the tubewell in question and obtained an injunction order against OPs from removing/disconnecting the electric connection from his premises/Dera then he was also liable to pay the energy charges for the period from 10/94 to 3/2001 and held that OP was entitled to recover the entire energy charges for the said period and complainant was held liable to pay the same. Thereafter, Opposite parties had filed appeal before the Haryana State Consumer Commission which has now been transferred to this Commission under the directions of Hon’ble National Commission.

5. We have perused the impugned order as well as other record carefully and find that the complaint of complainant was dismissed by the District Consumer Forum while holding him liable to pay the entire energy charges for the period 10/94 to 3/2001 and on the other hand OPs were held entitled to recover the same. It appears that the Opposite parties without going through the impugned order filed the appeal which was not called for and it only caused harassment to the complainant whose complaint had already been dismissed by the District Consumer Forum . Thus, while filing false appeal the appellants have unnecessarily wasted the precious time of the Commission.

6. In this view of the matter, to check such practice of filing unnecessary and uncalled for appeals , appellants are burdened with special costs of Rs.1000/-

Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to record room.

House No. - 58
Chintpurni Colony,
Sonipat (HYA)

There are three ACs in the house and the power load is much more than the sanctioned. Meter is also tempered and slowed

i applied for connection on 02-03-2010.but till now there is no connection.now you are requested to look into this matter.reply how more time it will take now.
my detail:-name iggya ram
vill-tharwa ,p.o.-shahpurnurd
teh.- barara( ambala)

[QUOTE=Unregistered;87875]i applied for connection on 18-04-2007.but till now there is no connection.now you are requested to look into this matter.reply how more time it will take now.
my detail:-name Ravinder singh
Village & Post Office Moi - Majri
Teh. & District Sonipat ( Haryana )