State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P., Lucknow.

Appeal No. 693 of 2019

Khoob Karan s/o Late Shri Mishri Lal,

R/o, H. No. RC 53/G-104, Ramganga Nagar,

Avasiya Colony, Thana, Bithri Chainpur,

Zila, Bareilly.                                                   ……Appellant.

Versus

1- S.D.O. Vidyut Vitran Khand Chaturth,

    Harungala Upkendra, Harungala,

    Zila Bareilly-243006

2- Adhikshana Abhiyanta, Vidyut Vitran

    Khand Chaturth, Harungala Upkendra,

    Harungala, Zila Bareilly.                         …...Respondents.

Present:-

Hon’ble Justice Mr. Akhtar Husain Khan, President.

Mr. A.K. Pandey for appellant.

None appeared for respondents.

Date:  13.11.2019

JUDGMENT

          This is an appeal filed under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before this State Commission against judgment and order dated 27.4.2019 passed by District Consumer Forum-II, Bareilly in complaint no.6 of 2018, Khoob Karan vs. S.D.O. Vidyut Vitran Khand Chaturth and another, whereby District Consumer Forum has disposed of complaint with following orders:-

“परिवाद इस प्रकार निस्‍तारित किया जाता है कि प्रतिपक्षीगण को यह निर्देश दिया जाता है कि यदि परिवादी निर्णय के एक माह के अन्‍तर्गत बकाया विद्युत देयों के किस्‍तों में भुगतान हेतु आवेदन करे तो नियमानुसार किस्‍तों की सुविधा प्रदान करे। उभय पक्ष अपना-अपना वाद व्‍यय स्‍वयं वहन करेंगे।”

Complainant is not satisfied with the order passed by District Consumer Forum. Consequently, complainant has filed this appeal before State Commission.

          Ld. Counsel Mr. A.K. Pandey appeared for appellant.

          None appeared for the respondents despite sufficient service of notice.

(2)

          I have heard ld. Counsel for the appellant and perused impugned judgment and order as well as records.

          In brief, relevant facts for determination of appeal are that the appellant/complainant has filed complaint against respondents/opposite parties wherein it has been stated that  the appellant/complainant has electricity connection no.165278 having account ID no.8386015080. The number of electric Meter of this connection is 341911 F.M. 01870. The meter of the connection is in working condition having no defect but RDF electric bills are being sent to appellant/ complainant. The appellant/complainant made complaint with the electricity authorities to send bills as per meter reading but the bill was not corrected. In the meantime, the appellant/ complainant deposited Rs.1,000.00 under OTS scheme for correction of bill. Even then no action was taken by the officials of the opposites parties. Thereafter, appellant/ complainant sent notice to the opposite parties through Advocate but neither the respondents/opposite parties replied the notice nor took any action to correct the bill but disconnected the electric connection of the appellant/ complainant. Therefore, feeling aggrieved, complainant filed complaint before the District Consumer Forum against the opposite parties for redressal of his grievances.

Written statement was filed on behalf of respondents/ opposite parties before the District Consumer Forum wherein it has been stated that the appellant/complainant has taken electric connection for domestic use but he has not made payment of electric bills. After depositing Rs.1,000.00 in OTS scheme, he has not made any further payment. The

(3)

electric connection of the appellant/complainant has been disconnected in default of payment of bills.

          After having gone through pleadings of the parties as well as evidence on record, the District Consumer Forum is of the view that there is no error in electric bills sent to appellant/complainant. Consequently, the District Consumer Forum is of the view that there is no deficiency in service of the respondents/opposite parties. However, considering the physical disability of the appellant/complainant District Forum has passed order extracted above.

It is contended by ld. Counsel for appellant that the  judgment and order passed by the District Consumer Forum is erroneous and against facts. RDF bill has been sent to appellant/complainant despite this fact that meter is in working condition having no defect.

 It is contended by ld. Counsel for appellant that appeal should be allowed and the respondents/opposite parties should be directed to correct the bill on the basis of meter reading.

 I have considered the submission made by ld. Counsel for the appellant.

The District Consumer Forum has mentioned in the impugned judgment that the complainant has annexed with complaint copy of electric bill wherein meter reading on 25.12.2017 has been mention 3441 and on 23.2.2018, 3490. The District Consumer forum has further mentioned that this bill shows that the meter is OK.

The District Consumer Forum has further mentioned in the impugned judgment that in this bill arrear of Rs.21,324.00 has been shown.

(4)

During the course of hearing ld. Counsel for appellant has shown copy of the bill.

I have perused copy of the bill.

In this bill, meter reading on 25.12.2017 is 3441 and on 23.2.2018, 3490 and the bill has been prepared on the basis of meter reading but in this bill previous arrear of Rs.20,688.87 has been shown. No other bill has been produced by the appellant/ complainant to show that RDF electric bill has been sent to appellant/complainant.

In view of discussions made above, after having gone through pleadings of the parties as well as evidence on record, I am of the view that the appellant/complainant has failed to establish that defective RDF electric bills have been sent to him by or on behalf of respondents/opposite parties. The District Consumer Forum has rightly held that the appellant/complainant has failed to establish deficiency in service of the opposite parties. Finding recorded by District Forum is based on correct analysis of evidence.

Ld. Counsel for the appellant/complainant has referred judgment of Hon’ble High Court, Allahabad rendered in the case of Satya Narayan vs. U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & others and reported in 2013(31) LCD 1338.

In this judgment Hon’ble High Court has held that sum due from any consumer may be recoverable within the period of two years from the date when such sum became first due.

It has not been averred by the appellant/complainant in complaint that previous arrear shown in the bill has been demanded for the first time in the bill. Therefore, it cannot be said that the demand of arrear has been made after expiry of two years from the date when such sum became first due.

(5)

For the reasons recorded above, I am of the view that there is no sufficient ground for any interference in the impugned judgment and order passed by the District Consumer Forum. Appeal is dismissed, accordingly.

Parties shall bear their own costs. 

(Justice Akhtar Husain Khan)       

                                                              President                            

Jafri PA II

Court No.1