Back
2013 Supreme(UK) 452
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
UTTARAKHAND, DEHRADUN
Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.C. Kandpal and Hon’ble Member Mr. C.C. Pant
First Appeal No. 56/2008
UTTARAKHAND POWER CORPORATION LTD. – Appellant
Versus
SMT. PREM LATA (SINCE DECEASED) & ORS. – Respondents
Decided on : 17.10.2013
For the Appellant : Mr. S.M. Jain, Learned Counsel
For the Respondent: Mr. Amarjeet Singh, Learned Counsel
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and Electricity Supply (Consumers) Regulations, 1984 — Appeal under — Against recommendation of the electricity connection to the complainant — In the instant case, the respondent had always expressed her willingness to deposit the bills’ amount, if the bills were correctly issued — But, the appellant had failed to explain as to why the connection number was not rectified and the electricity bills were not issued in accordance with the meter reading — In the case of electricity consumers, it is the electricity connection number, which is used as the unique consumer number — For correct billing and accounting, it must be a unique number — And if the area code is changed, the bill pertains to some other consumer and bill’s amount would be shown deposited in a different account — Thus, the respondent’s objection was genuine that her connection number be corrected — In the present case, respondent’s connection was disconnected in the year 2001, and was reconnected on payment of Rs. 100/- as reconnection charges — Again, the connection was disconnected in the year 2004 and is lying disconnected since then — According to appellant the amount of the electricity bill should be deposited first and then the respondent would get the electricity connection reconnected — Appellant also, refers to Regulation Nos. 19(iv), 19(v), 19(vi) and 8 — But, the regulation applicable only when the respondent had defaulted in payment of the bills — Therefore, unjust to refer to rules and regulations — Held not proper and just to issue bill of minimum charges to the respondent, as was directed by the District Forum — Instead, as the respondent had consumed 9098 units since the installation of the electricity connection — Therefore, the appellant shall charge for 9098 units @ 2/- per unit and no surcharge to be added, because surcharge is charged when the consumer had defaulted in payment — Accordingly impugned order modified. (Paras 5, 7, 8)
miHkksDrk laj{k.k vf/kfu;e] 1986 vkSj fo|qr forj.k ¼miHkksDrk½ fu;ekoyh] 1984 & f’kdk;rdrkZ ds fo|qr dusD’ku ds iqu% dusD’ku ds fo#) vihy & izLrqr okn esa izfrokfnuh us ges’kk gh fcy jkf’k tek djus dh bPNk trkbZ Fkh vxj ikfjr fcy esa dksbZ =qfV u gks & ijUrq vihykFkhZ ;g fooj.k nsus esa vlQy jgk Fkk fd dusD’ku lañ dks Bhd dj ehVj vuqlkj fo|qr dk fcy ikfjr D;ksa ugha fd;k x;k Fkk & fo|qr miHkksDrk ds ekeys esa fo|qr dusD’ku uañ gh fof’k”V miHkksDrk lañ gksrh gS & vxj {ks= dksM cny fn;k tk,] rc fcy jkf’k fdlh vU; miHkksDrk ds [kkrs esa tek gks tk,xk & bl izdkj izfrokfnuh dh vkifÙk okLrfod Fkh fd mldh dusD’ku lañ dks Bhd fd;k tk, & izLrqr okn esa izfrokfnuh dk dusD’ku o”kZ 2001 esa dkV fn;k x;k Fkk ftls #- 100@& dh jkf’k iqu% dusD’ku ds :i esa tek dj tksM+k x;k Fkk & nksckjk fQj dusD’ku dks o”kZ 2004 esa dkV fn;k x;k tks dVk iM+k Fkk & vihykFkhZ us fofu;e lañ 19(iv), 19(v), 19(vi) vkSj 8 dks izLrkfor fd;k & ijUrq fofu;e rHkh ;ksftr gksrs gSa tc izfroknh us fcy u tek fd;k gks & blfy, fu;e o fofu;eu dk izLrko vU;kf;d & ;g mfpr o U;kf;d ugha fd izfrokfnuh dks U;wure fcy ikfjr dj fn;k tSlk fd ftyk Qksje us funsZf’kr fd;k Fkk tcfd izfrokfnuh us tc ls fo|qr dusD’ku yxk Fkk flQZ 9098 ;wfuV [kpZ fd, Fks & bl izdkj vihykFkhZ dks flQZ 9098 ;wfuV dk #- 2 izfr ;wfuV fcy ysuk pkfg, cxSj fdlh ljpktZ fy, pw¡fd ljpktZ fy;k tkrk gS vxj miHkksDrk fcy tek djus ls pwd x;k gks & rn~uqlkj ikfjr vkns’k la’kksf/kr fd;k x;kA
¼izLrj 5] 7] 8½
(Per: C.C. Pant, Member):
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30.01.2008 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 202 of 2006. Vide its order, the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint with a cost of Rs. 2,000/- and directed the opposite party, Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. (in short “UPCL”), to issue electricity bills pertaining to the period prior to the year 2006, when UPCL started sending bills to the complainant on the basis of actual meter unit, for the minimum charges after adjusting the bill amount already deposited by the complainant. The District Forum has also directed the opposite party to reconnect the electricity connection of the complainant within three days from the date of depositing the bill amount by the complainant.
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the complainant – Smt. Prem Lata, now deceased, had taken an electricity connection No. 425/49289 on 10.02.1998 from the UPCL for her residence. The complainant has alleged that the opposite party – UPCL through its Executive Engineer, EDD, Mayapur, Haridwar, did not send any electricity bill since the date of connection, though her husband Sh. Shyam Lal has always been persuading the officials of the UPCL to issue the bills on the basis of actual meter reading. However, it came to the knowledge of the complainant that her electricity connection number is being shown as 428/49289 instead of 425/49289 and, thus, the bills were misplaced. She sent various letters to the UPCL on 25.03.2003, 24.09.2003, 05.05.2004, 28.09.2004 and 23.10.2004 in this regard, but the UPCL did not take any action. She also sent a registered notice to the UPCL on 13.12.2004 and again on 16.03.2005 through her counsel, but to no avail. The complainant has also stated that she has made a part payment of Rs. 4,000/- and Rs. 311/- vide receipt Nos. 36/365959 and 15/272873 respectively to the UPCL and she is ready to pay the balance amount as per the correct electricity bill based on actual meter reading and with correct electricity connection number. The complainant has alleged that inspite of her requests and her willingness to pay the amount of correct bills, the opposite party issued a electricity bill dated 10.06.2004 for Rs. 44,994/- again with incorrect electricity connection
No. 428/49289 and without meter reading. This led the complainant to file a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar on 11.04.2005. The District Forum, after an appreciation of the facts of the case, allowed the consumer complaint in the above manner vide its order dated 30.01.2008. Aggrieved by the said order, the Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd., EDD, Mayapur, Haridwar has filed this appeal.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant mainly emphasized on Regulation Nos. 19(iv) and 19(v) of the Electricity Supply (Consumers) Regulations, 1984. He submitted that if a bill is not received by the consumer within three weeks from the date on which last reading was taken, then under Regulation No. 19(iv) of the Electricity Supply (Consumers) Regulations, 1984, the consumer should take the meter reading himself / herself and get the bill prepared from the office of the UPCL. Similarly, if the bill is incorrect, then the consumer should get it corrected under Regulation No. 19(v) of the Electricity Supply (Consumers) Regulations, 1984. With regard to the error in Book No. 425, which has appeared as 428, the learned counsel argued that the Book number is not significant. The connection number 49289 is correctly printed and, therefore, the bill has no significant error. In support of his argument, the learned counsel pressed into service the following decisions:-
(a) West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. vs. Gurupada Majumder; 2011(1) CPR 114 (West Bengal State Commission)
(b) This Commission’s decision dated 13.1
