Back
UTTAR PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Justice Mr. Akhtar Husain Khan, President
DAKSHINACHAL VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. - Appellant
Versus
RAMSEWAK - Respondent
First Appeal No. A/263 of 2017
Decided on : 19-01-2018
Mr. Deepak Mehrotra, Advocate, for the Appellant; None, for the Respondent
The court emphasized that the electricity bill was not illegal and that any irregularities with the meter readings should be addressed to the electricity department.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act 1986 - Electricity Bill Dispute - The court set aside the judgment and order of the District Consumer Forum, ruling that the electricity bill issued to the complainant was not illegal, and the complainant should address any irregularities with the electricity department.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant filed a complaint alleging harassment by the electricity provider for sending higher bills, despite not consuming electricity illegally. The complainant also claimed that the meter installed was not giving correct readings.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned judgment and order of the District Consumer Forum was erroneous and set it aside. The complainant was given the liberty to make a complaint before the electricity provider regarding the higher reading of the meter or other irregularities.
Issues: Dispute over electricity bill and meter readings, alleged harassment by the electricity provider.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the electricity bill was not illegal and that any complaints regarding the meter readings should be addressed to the electricity department.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the judgment and order of the District Consumer Forum was set aside, with the complainant given the liberty to make a complaint before the electricity provider within two months.
ORDER
Akhtar Husain Khan, President. - This is an appeal filed before State Commission under Section-15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against judgment and order dated 06-01-2016 passed by District Consumer Forum, Auraiya in Complaint Case No. 288 of 2015 Ram Sevak v. Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited and another whereby the District Consumer Forum has allowed complaint and quashed electricity bill issued by opposite party against respondent/complainant for Rs. 2,92,174/- and restrained opposite parties to recover this amount.
2. The District Consumer Forum has further awarded Rs. 1,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs. 500/- as cost of litigation to respondent/complainant.
3. Feeling aggrieved with the judgment and order passed by District Consumer Forum, the opposite parties of complaint, Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited and another have filed this appeal before :2: State Commission.
4. Learned Counsel Mr. Deepak Mehrotra appeared for appellant.
5. None appeared for respondent despite sufficient service of notice.
6. I have heard learned Counsel for the appellants and perused impugned judgment and order as well as records.
7. Relevant facts in brief for determination of appeal are that the respondent/complainant has filed complaint before District Consumer Forum, Auraiya wherein it has been stated that he has an electric connection No. 3802/301115 for flour mill.
8. It has been further stated by complainant in complaint that the connection has been obtained for commercial purpose but it is not being used for commercial purpose. The complainant has further alleged that the opposite parties and their employees are harassing him by sending bills with additional amount of surcharge. Thus they are sending higher bills even though the respondent/complainant has not consumed electricity illegally.
9. In complaint it has been further stated by complainant that the respondent/complainant requested opposite parties to correct his bill but they refused to correct it and threatened him to get arrested through police.
10. It has been further stated by complainant that the present meter installed by opposite parties is not giving correct reading. The usual reading of electricity consumed by respondent/complainant was 800 - 1000 units whereas the present meter is giving reading of 3000 - 4000 units per month.
11. In complaint it has been stated that the complainant requested opposite parties to cancel the bill wrongly issued but they failed to accept his prayer. Consequently complainant has filed this complaint before District Consumer Forum.
12. Opposite parties of the complaint have filed written statement before District Consumer Forum wherein allegation made in complaint has been denied and it has been stated that the meter installed at the connection of complainant was found defective. Therefore it has been :3: replaced by a new meter.
13. After having gone through pleadings of the parties as well as evidence on record the District Consumer Forum has passed impugned judgment and order as mentioned above.
14. Learned Counsel for the appellants has contended that the impugned judgment and order is against law as well as facts. The respondent/complainant has wrongly stated that he has paid arrears of electricity dues on O.T.S. Scheme and has not filed any receipt of deposit of said amount. The District Consumer Forum has wrongly placed reliance on the version of complainant.
15. Learned Counsel for the appellants has further contended that the respondent has deposited Rs. 1,000/- for registration under O.T.S. Scheme but did not make any further payment as per requirement of O.T.S. Scheme.
16. Learned Counsel for the appellants has contended that the correct electricity bills have been issued against respondent/complainant and recovery is being done in accordance with law.
17. I have considered the submission made by learned Counsel for the appellants.
Perusal of impugned judgment and order shows that the res
