NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Dr. Inder Jit Singh, Presiding Member
Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran
Nigam Ltd. and Anr. – Petitioners
versus
Radhey Shyam – Respondent
Revision Petition No.993 of 2021
(Against the Order dated 24/08/2021 in Appeal No. 1745/2015 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh)
Decided on 7.8.2023
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 58(1)(b) – Electricity – Bill dispute – Complaint partly allowed by District Forum – Contentions of petitioner that District Forum has not given any definite findings on whether demand made by petitioners was wrong and to what extent, rather has gone by extraneous considerations, thereby ordering payment of Rs.75,000/- only and waiving off remaining amount payable from demand raised by petitioner, is correct – State Commission has not given any valid / sound reasons for upholding order of District Forum and dismissing appeal – Order of State Commission as well as District Forum set aside, complaint of respondent dismissed. (Paras 11 and 12)
Result: Revision Petition allowed.
ORDER
The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioners against Respondent as detailed above, under Section 58(1)(b) of Consumer Protection Act 2019, against the order dated 24.08.2021 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No. 1745 of 2015 in which order dated 25.07.2015 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Varanasi (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) no. 06 of 2014 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the order dated 24.08.2021 of the State Commission.
2. While the Revision Petitioners (hereinafter also referred to as OPs) were Appellants and the Respondent (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was Respondent in the said FA No. 1745 of 2015 before the State Commission, the Revision Petitioners were OPs and Respondent was Complainant before the District Forum in the CC no. 06 of 2014.
3. Notice was issued to the Respondents on 06.04.2022. Parties filed Written Arguments/Synopsis on 12.07.2023 and 24.02.2023 respectively.
4. Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Forum and other case records are that Complainant is a consumer of electricity connection no. 295121 and account no. 1087521 was allotted to him. Newly constructed shops are located on the ground floor in the building of the complainant in which all the tenants pay the electricity bill having electricity meter in their own name. The family of the complainant lives in seven rooms located on the first and second floor of the house and in seven other rooms, the complainant runs a Dharamshala, namely, ‘Prakash Guest House ‘and receives a little donation from the pilgrims in lieu of accommodation. The complainant increased the power load of 7 kw electricity in his premises on his own and kept paying the bills regularly. On 06.07.2011, the old electricity meter installed in the premises of the complainant was changed to new meter bearing number 5242 and the bill of Rs.1,32,200/- sent to him on the basis of the meter reading on the above connection was paid. After that, wrong bills of Rs.1,27,242/- of different dates were sent to him by the Petitioner and Petitioner did not adjust the amount of Rs.1,32,200/- which he had already deposited. Being aggrieved of this, the Complainant filed the CC before the District Forum and the District Commission vide order dated 25.07.2015 partly allowed the CC. Aggrieved by the decision of the District Forum, the OPs filed an Appeal before the State Commission which was dismissed. Hence the OPs are before this Commission now in the present RP.
5. Petitioners have challenged the said Order dated 24.08.2021 of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:—
(i) The present case is a non consumer dispute because the respondent had taken the electric connection of 2 kw for running guest house / shops which is a commercial purpose and ,therefore, respondent is not a consumer under Consumer Protection Act.
(ii) The Fora below did not consider the fact that bill of Rs.1,27,242/- was sent to the respondent in respect of his new meter.
(iii) The State Commission did not consider the fact that old meter was got replaced by the Petitioner with new meter since respondent had been using electricity in 16 rooms which was more than the capacity of meter due to excess load.
(iv) Billing of the respondent was being done on the basis of the minimum consumption of old meter but respondent never submitted the ceiling certificate of the replaced meter.
(v) Since first meter of the respondent was stopped and replaced and after adjusting the amount of Rs.1,37,142/- deposited by the respondent, the bill of remaining arrear of Rs.1,27,242/- was sent to the respondent on 31.12.2003 as per rules, which fact is not considered by the Fora below.
(vi) After receiving the revised bill of Rs.1,27,242/-
M/s Ruby Chandra Dutta vs. M/s United India Insurance Company
Electricity bill dispute—Consumer Forum cannot quash bill without giving any definite findings on whether demand made by Company was wrong.
National Commission does not act as Appellate Forum and cannot reappreciate evidence unless there is some jurisdictional error.
The court held that the consumer's rights must be respected, particularly concerning the testing and handling of metering devices, emphasizing procedural adherence.
The central legal point established is that the opposite party was not a consumer as defined under the Electricity Act, 2003 or the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, leading to jurisdictional errors by ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.