Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board

[Tanu]

H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA

Appeal No. 340/2007.

Date of Decision 07.04.2009.



1. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board

through its Secretary at Shimla.,



2. Superintending Engineer, Electrical Circle

HPSEB Bilaspur District, District Bilaspur, HP.,



3. Executive Engineer, Electrical Division Bilaspur

Distt. Bilaspur.,



4. Assistant Engineer, Electrical Division, HPSEB Bilaspur,

Distt. Bilaspur, HP.

……..Appellants.

Versus



Mr. Munir Akhtar S/o Sh. Husain Beg Vice Chairman

The Gobind Sagar, Fisheries Corporation M & S

Federation Ltd., Bilaspur, HP.

…….Respondent.



Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Goel, President.

Hon’ble Mrs. Saroj Sharma, Member.

Hon’ble Mr. Chander Shekher Sharma, Member.



Whether Approved for reporting? No.



For the Appellants. Mr. B.S. Ranjan, Advocate with Mr. J.K.

Mahajan, SDO HPSEB, Electrical Sub Division-

II, Bilaspur, HP who has been identified as such

by Mr. Ranjan.



For the Respondent. Mr. Kulbhushan Khajuria, Advocate with Mr.

Shakti Singh, Executive officer of the Gobind

Sagar Fisheries Co-operative Marketing and

Supply Federation under liquidation.







O R D E R:



Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.) President (Oral)



Appellants are aggrieved from the order dated 29.5.2007, passed by District Forum Shimla, in Consumer Complaint No. 354/2005. While allowing the complaint of the respondent-society which was filed by Mr. Munir Akhtar as its Vice Chairman in his own name, District Forum below has allowed the complaint in the following terms:-

“In view of the foregoing discussion, we allow this complaint and after setting aside and quashing the bill No. 3091976 amounting to Rs. 3,65,937/-, the OPs-Board are directed to issue revised bill to the complainant as per instruction and on the basis of the average consumption within a period of forty five days from the date of receipt of cop of this order and also to pay Rs. 1500/- as cost of litigation. With these directions, the complaint stands disposed of. The office shall make available a copy of this order to the parties free of cost as per procedure. The file after due completion, be consigned to records.”



2. At the time of hearing, Mr. Ranjan learned counsel for the appellants brought to our notice chequered history of this case. He referred to the order of the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Bilaspur dated 23.9.2004. By means of this order, suit filed by Sh. B.R. Patial, Executive Officer in his own name on behalf of the society was dismissed as withdrawn unconditionally. Though reference has been made regarding filing of the suit in paragraph 8 of the complaint, but the averment made is completely misleading inasmuch as, that the suit was dismissed as having been withdrawn unconditionally, whereas averment is that it was “returned” on 23.9.2004.

3. It is also admitted by the respondent in the complaint, that thereafter the matter was referred to Dispute Settlement Committee, Mandi because nothing was done, therefore, the complaint was filed out of which this appeal has arisen.

4. At the time of hearing of this appeal, learned counsel for the parties stated that a sum of Rs. 1.50 lacs stands already deposited by the respondent with the appellant-board pursuant to the order of the District Forum below.

5. In the face of the above facts and especially the Rs. 1.50 lacs out of the disputed amount having been deposited by the respondent, we are of the considered view that Dispute Settlement Committee, Mandi should have disposed of the matter, which according to Mr. Ranjan learned counsel for the appellants is still pending with it. Reason for the matter being not decided given by Mr. Ranjan is that the balance amount was not deposited, so the matter remained pending. Nothing could be brought to our notice on behalf of the appellants that unless the entire claim amount is deposited, the Dispute Settlement Committee, Mandi would not examine and decide the case.

6. That being the position, this appeal is being disposed of in the following terms:-

A) Since respondent has admittedly deposited Rs. 1.50 lacs with the appellant-board, the Dispute Settlement Committee, of the board at Mandi will decide the complaint and appropriate orders if necessary will be issued by the authority concerned of the HP State Electricity Board to the said Committee to do the needful forthwith;



B) Parties shall abide by the directions of the said Committee in accordance with the law. In this behalf we clarify that if any of the parties is aggrieved from the order of the Committee it will be at liberty to go such higher authority of the board constituted for the purpose. We clarify that while setting aside the impugned order passed by the District Forum below the complaint stands dismissed, subject to what has been said hereinabove;



C) Appellants shall proceed further in the matter only after the matter has been settled by the Dispute Settlement Committee, Mandi; and



D) The Board while directing the Committee to decide the matter will keep in view the time gap as such we expect and hope the said committee to decide the case at the earliest within a reasonable time frame.



All interim orders passed form time to time in this appeal shall stand vacated forthwith.

Learned counsel for the parties have undertaken to collect copy of this order from the Court Secretary free of cost as per rules.



Shimla.

7th April, 2009 (Justice Arun Kumar Goel) Retd.

/K/ President.





(Saroj Sharma)

Member.



(Chander Shekher Sharma)

Member.

[adv.sumit]

Shri H.S. Kukreja

… Complainant

Versus



Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board

And another



…Opposite Parties







O R D E R:



This order shall dispose of complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant has contended that the electricity tariff bills dated 10.03.2008, 04.04.2008 and 03.05.2008, are, excessive as well as inflated, as, he has not used the electricity to such an extent as reflected in the bill aforesaid. The learned counsel for the OP has seriously refuted the contention as put forth by the learned counsel for the complainant.



2. Without adjudicating the complaint on merits, it is expedient and also in the interest of justice that the OP, is, directed to hold an inquiry into controversy over which the parties are engaged and after an appraisal of the bill, as, issued to the consumer and on an investigation of the metered reading of the consumer, as also, qua, the authenticity of such meter reading, shall render, its, finding. It is made clear that in the above exercise, when the OP proceeds to conduct an inquiry, it, shall issue prior notice to the complainant intimating him of the date and venue of the inquiry. The inquiry shall be conducted within forty five days after the date of receipt of copy of this order and a copy of the inquiry report shall also be placed on record.


In case the complainant is prejudiced by the inquiry conducted by the OP, he, shall be at liberty to approach this Forum afresh. In the mean time, the bill aforesaid is set aside and quashed, hence, in the above terms the complaint stands disposed of. The learned counsel for the parties have undertaken to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, free of cost, as per procedure. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.

[adv.sumit]

Shri Kirpa Ram



… Complainant

Versus



Executive Engineer, HPSEB



…Opposite Party





O R D E R:




This order shall dispose of complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant has contended that the electricity tariff bill No.7058109, for the period 25.01.2007 to 25.04.2007, amounting to Rs.36,869/-, is, excessive as well as inflated, as, he has not used the electricity to such an extent as reflected in the bill aforesaid. The learned counsel for the OP has seriously refuted the contention as put forth by the learned counsel for the complainant.




2. Without adjudicating the complaint on merits, it is expedient and also in the interest of justice that the OP, is, directed to hold an inquiry into controversy over which the parties are engaged and after an appraisal of the bill, as, issued to the consumer and on an investigation of the metered reading of the consumer, as also, qua, the authenticity of such meter reading, shall render, its, finding. It is made clear that in the above exercise, when the OP proceeds to conduct an inquiry, it, shall issue prior notice to the complainant intimating him of the date and venue of the inquiry. The inquiry shall be conducted within forty five days after the date of receipt of copy of this order and a copy of the inquiry report shall also be placed on record.


In case the complainant is prejudiced by the inquiry conducted by the OP, he, shall be at liberty to approach this Forum afresh. In the mean time, the bill aforesaid is set aside and quashed, hence, in the above terms the complaint stands disposed of. The learned counsel for the parties have undertaken to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, free of cost, as per procedure. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.

[adv.sumit]

Shri Bablu Singh S/O Shri Khajan Singh,

Resident of V.P.O. Sarahan, Tehsil Pachhad,

District Sirmour, H.P.





… Complainant.

Versus





1. The Superintending Engineer,

HPSEB Division/Circle, Nahan,

District Sirmour, H.P.



2. Sub Divisonal Officer,

HPSEB, Electrical Sub Divison Sarahan,

District Sirmour, H.P.





…Opposite Parties





O R D E R:




This complaint has been filed by the complainant, by invoking the provisions of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. He avers that he applied for installation of an electric connection with the OP No.2, hence, deposited a sum of Rs.2937/- with it, vide receipt No.0044047 on, 07.08.2008, concomitantly sundry charges of electricity wires. He further proceeded to aver that though the OPs installed the electric meter on, 14.08.2008, at his residential premises, yet the OP No.2, without any intimation or reason, disconnected the same, on, 21.08.2008. Hence, it is averred that there is apparent deficiency in service on the part of the OPs-Board and accordingly relief to the extent as detailed in the relief clause be awarded in favour of the complainant.

2. The OPs-Board, in their written version, to the complaint, besides raising preliminary objections, vis-à-vis maintainability of the complaint, jurisdiction of the Forum to entertain and try the present complaint, denied that neither the electricity meter was installed by the OP No.2 in the residential premises of the complainant nor service connection order was issued. They further contend that civil litigation between the complainant and other co-sharers is pending in the court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Nahan, in which the complainant was restrained by way of ad-interim injunction from raising construction and changing the nature of the suit land. Hence, it is denied, that, there was any deficiency in service on their part or that they have indulged in an unfair trade practice.

3. Thereafter, the parties adduced evidence, by way of affidavits, and, documents in support of their respective, rival contentions.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also thoroughly scanned the entire record of the case.

5. The complainant in proof of his having applied for installation of electricity connection at his residential premises, has placed reliance on a receipt, dated, 07.08.2008, which bears Annexure C-, issued by OP No.2. The OPs having installed the electricity meter, and thereafter having purportedly removed, it, from the residential premises of the complainant, hence, the complainant is aggrieved by the act of the OPs in removing the said connection, illegally and without any prior intimation to him, as such, has, prayed that the OPs be directed to install the meter and restore the electricity connection.

6. The OP do not deny the fact of theirs having received the security amount as tendered by the complainant for installation of the electricity meter in the residential premises of the complainant. The OPs deny the fact that electricity meter was installed by them, or that a service connection was afforded to him. They have also proceeded to contend, that, since a civil litigation, is, pending between one Jagdish Sharma and the complainant, in, the court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Nahan, wherein, the complainant has been restrained from raising a construction over the suit land, as, detailed in it, as such, they have been precluded to install the electricity meter in the residential premises of the complainant. However, the OPs was neither a party in the said litigation nor when the OPs has not brought forth any cogent evidence disclosing the fact that the OP-Board has been restrained from installing a new electricity connection in his residential premises, where, he sought an electricity connection, or that it is the same premises detailed in Annexure-1.


Therefore, in the absence of the aforesaid evidence, it has to be concluded that when the complainant has deposited security amount of Rs.2937/- as detailed in Annexure C-1, hence, they were obliged to afford service connection, rather when they have for reasons disclosed in the reply denied the same, which contention for reasons aforesaid do not warrant ours countenancing, the same, hence, there was certainly deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.

7. Resultantly, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs-Board to:-

i) That the OPs-Board shall install/restore the electricity connection to the residential premises of the complainant, within a period of one month after the date of receipt of copy of this order by them;



ii) That the OPs-Board, shall also pay damages of Rs.1500/- to the complainant, for causing him pains, sufferings and harassment;



iii) That the litigation cost is quantified at Rs.1000/- to be paid to the complainant, by the OPs-Board, which shall be paid to him, by the OPs-Board, within the aforesaid stipulated period;



8. The learned counsel for the parties undertook to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, free of cost, as per rules. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.

[adv.sumit]

Shri Om Prakash Kansal S/O Shri Rameshwar Dayal,

R/O H.No.42, Ward No.8, Near Cicema Street,

Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P.



… Complainant.



Versus



1. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board,

Through its Secretary, Shimla, H.P.



2. The Executive Engineer, Electricity Board,

Badripur, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P.



… Opposite Parties






__________________________________________________ _____****

O R D E R:

This order shall dispose of complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant has contended that the electricity tariff bill No.171292 dated 10.07.2007, for the period 26.07.2007 to 28.07.2007 amounting to Rs.6319/-, is, excessive as well as inflated, as, he has not used the electricity to such an extent as reflected in the bill aforesaid. The learned counsel for the OP has seriously refuted the contention as put forth by the learned counsel for the complainant.

2. Without adjudicating the complaint on merits, it is expedient and also in the interest of justice that the OP, is, directed to hold an inquiry into controversy over which the parties are engaged and after an appraisal of the bill, as, issued to the consumer and on an investigation of the metered reading of the consumer, as also, qua, the authenticity of such meter reading, shall render, its, finding.



It is made clear that in the above exercise, when the OP proceeds to conduct an inquiry, it, shall issue prior notice to the complainant intimating him of the date and venue of the inquiry. The inquiry shall be conducted within forty five days after the date of receipt of copy of this order and a copy of the inquiry report shall also be placed on record. In case the complainant is prejudiced by the inquiry conducted by the OP, he, shall be at liberty to approach this Forum afresh. In the mean time, the bill aforesaid is set aside and quashed, hence, in the above terms the complaint stands disposed of. The learned counsel for the parties have undertaken to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, free of cost, as per procedure. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.

[adv.sumit]

Dr. Kulwant Singh Pathania



… Complainant

Versus



Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board

Through its Secretary and another



…Opposite Parties









O R D E R:

This order shall dispose of complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant has contended that the electricity tariff bills amounting to Rs.523/- Annexure C-7, and, amounting to Rs.11,486/- Annexure C-10, are, excessive as well as inflated, as, he has not used the electricity to such an extent as reflected in the bill aforesaid. The learned counsel for the OPs has seriously refuted the contention as put forth by the learned counsel for the complainant.

2. Without adjudicating the complaint on merits, it is expedient and also in the interest of justice that the OPs, is, directed to hold an inquiry into controversy over which the parties are engaged and after an appraisal of the bill, as, issued to the consumer and on an investigation of the metered reading of the consumer, as also, qua, the authenticity of such meter reading, shall render, its, finding.


It is made clear that in the above exercise, when the OPs proceeds to conduct an inquiry, it, shall issue prior notice to the complainant intimating him of the date and venue of the inquiry. The inquiry shall be conducted within forty five days after the date of receipt of copy of this order and a copy of the inquiry report shall also be placed on record. In case the complainant is prejudiced by the inquiry conducted by the OPs, he, shall be at liberty to approach this Forum afresh.


In the mean time, the bill aforesaid is set aside and quashed, hence, in the above terms the complaint stands disposed of. The learned counsel for the parties have undertaken to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, free of cost, as per procedure. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.

[adv.sumit]

Shri H.S. Kukreja

… Complainant

Versus



Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board

And another



…Opposite Parties










O R D E R:

This order shall dispose of complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant has contended that the electricity tariff bills dated 10.03.2008, 04.04.2008 and 03.05.2008, are, excessive as well as inflated, as, he has not used the electricity to such an extent as reflected in the bill aforesaid. The learned counsel for the OP has seriously refuted the contention as put forth by the learned counsel for the complainant.

2. Without adjudicating the complaint on merits, it is expedient and also in the interest of justice that the OP, is, directed to hold an inquiry into controversy over which the parties are engaged and after an appraisal of the bill, as, issued to the consumer and on an investigation of the metered reading of the consumer, as also, qua, the authenticity of such meter reading, shall render, its, finding.


It is made clear that in the above exercise, when the OP proceeds to conduct an inquiry, it, shall issue prior notice to the complainant intimating him of the date and venue of the inquiry. The inquiry shall be conducted within forty five days after the date of receipt of copy of this order and a copy of the inquiry report shall also be placed on record. In case the complainant is prejudiced by the inquiry conducted by the OP, he, shall be at liberty to approach this Forum afresh. In the mean time, the bill aforesaid is set aside and quashed, hence, in the above terms the complaint stands disposed of. The learned counsel for the parties have undertaken to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, free of cost, as per procedure. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.

[adv.sumit]

Shri Kirpa Ram



… Complainant

Versus



Executive Engineer, HPSEB



…Opposite Party



O R D E R:



This order shall dispose of complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant has contended that the electricity tariff bill No.7058109, for the period 25.01.2007 to 25.04.2007, amounting to Rs.36,869/-, is, excessive as well as inflated, as, he has not used the electricity to such an extent as reflected in the bill aforesaid. The learned counsel for the OP has seriously refuted the contention as put forth by the learned counsel for the complainant.

2. Without adjudicating the complaint on merits, it is expedient and also in the interest of justice that the OP, is, directed to hold an inquiry into controversy over which the parties are engaged and after an appraisal of the bill, as, issued to the consumer and on an investigation of the metered reading of the consumer, as also, qua, the authenticity of such meter reading, shall render, its, finding.


It is made clear that in the above exercise, when the OP proceeds to conduct an inquiry, it, shall issue prior notice to the complainant intimating him of the date and venue of the inquiry. The inquiry shall be conducted within forty five days after the date of receipt of copy of this order and a copy of the inquiry report shall also be placed on record. In case the complainant is prejudiced by the inquiry conducted by the OP, he, shall be at liberty to approach this Forum afresh. In the mean time, the bill aforesaid is set aside and quashed, hence, in the above terms the complaint stands disposed of. The learned counsel for the parties have undertaken to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, free of cost, as per procedure. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.

[adv.sumit]

Shri H.S. Kukreja

… Complainant

Versus



Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board

And another



…Opposite Parties










O R D E R:

This order shall dispose of complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant has contended that the electricity tariff bills dated 10.03.2008, 04.04.2008 and 03.05.2008, are, excessive as well as inflated, as, he has not used the electricity to such an extent as reflected in the bill aforesaid. The learned counsel for the OP has seriously refuted the contention as put forth by the learned counsel for the complainant.

2. Without adjudicating the complaint on merits, it is expedient and also in the interest of justice that the OP, is, directed to hold an inquiry into controversy over which the parties are engaged and after an appraisal of the bill, as, issued to the consumer and on an investigation of the metered reading of the consumer, as also, qua, the authenticity of such meter reading, shall render, its, finding. It is made clear that in the above exercise, when the OP proceeds to conduct an inquiry, it, shall issue prior notice to the complainant intimating him of the date and venue of the inquiry.


The inquiry shall be conducted within forty five days after the date of receipt of copy of this order and a copy of the inquiry report shall also be placed on record. In case the complainant is prejudiced by the inquiry conducted by the OP, he, shall be at liberty to approach this Forum afresh. In the mean time, the bill aforesaid is set aside and quashed, hence, in the above terms the complaint stands disposed of. The learned counsel for the parties have undertaken to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, free of cost, as per procedure. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.

[adv.sumit]

Shri Raj Bhadur

… Complainant.

Versus



Executive Engineer, HPSEB and others

…Opposite Parties.









O R D E R:

Arguments heard. The complainant is aggrieved by the act of the OPs, in refusing to accept the security amount, for installation of electricity meter at the allotted accommodation. The OPs, in a detailed reply supported by an affidavit, has contended that the delay, if any, was occasioned, as a result of lapse on the part of the complainant to fulfill the codal formalities, as ordained by the law.


The said contention, has raised in the reply of the OP, to vindicate, the, act of the complainant, has neither been controverted nor the complainant has adduced evidence that at the time, he, sought installation of an electricity connection in the premises allotted to him, he, did comply with the codal formalities as enjoined.



Therefore, the contention as raised in the reply of the OP, not suffering from falsity, the refusal or lapse if any, is, on the part of the OPs, to be countenanced, as such, cannot be construed as a deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Therefore, we find no force in the contention of the complainant, hence, the complaint being merit-less, is liable to be dismissed. We order accordingly. However, their shall be no order as to the costs.

The learned counsel for the parties undertook to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, free of cost, as per procedure. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.

[adv.sumit]

Dr. Kulwant Singh Pathania



… Complainant

Versus



Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board

Through its Secretary and another



…Opposite Parties










O R D E R:

This order shall dispose of complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant has contended that the electricity tariff bills amounting to Rs.523/- Annexure C-7, and, amounting to Rs.11,486/- Annexure C-10, are, excessive as well as inflated, as, he has not used the electricity to such an extent as reflected in the bill aforesaid. The learned counsel for the OPs has seriously refuted the contention as put forth by the learned counsel for the complainant.

2. Without adjudicating the complaint on merits, it is expedient and also in the interest of justice that the OPs, is, directed to hold an inquiry into controversy over which the parties are engaged and after an appraisal of the bill, as, issued to the consumer and on an investigation of the metered reading of the consumer, as also, qua, the authenticity of such meter reading, shall render, its, finding.


It is made clear that in the above exercise, when the OPs proceeds to conduct an inquiry, it, shall issue prior notice to the complainant intimating him of the date and venue of the inquiry. The inquiry shall be conducted within forty five days after the date of receipt of copy of this order and a copy of the inquiry report shall also be placed on record.


In case the complainant is prejudiced by the inquiry conducted by the OPs, he, shall be at liberty to approach this Forum afresh. In the mean time, the bill aforesaid is set aside and quashed, hence, in the above terms the complaint stands disposed of. The learned counsel for the parties have undertaken to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, free of cost, as per procedure. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.