Industries STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND, DEHRADUN Date of Institution: 06.04.2016 Date of Final Hearing: 23.02.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 03.03.2023 First Appeal No. 63 / 2016

1. Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd.

Through its Executive Engineer Electricity Distribution Division, (Rural) SIDCUL, Haridwar

2. Executive Engineer Electricity Distribution Division (Rural) SIDCUL UPCL, Haridwar (Through: Smt. Shashi Yogeshwar, Advocate)

…..Appellants VERSUS M/s Ganpati Packaging Engineering Industries Through Sh. Nitin Kochar Sitapur Road, District Haridwar …..None for Respondent Coram:

Ms. Kumkum Rani, Judicial Member II Mr. B.S. Manral, Member

ORDER

(Per: Ms. Kumkum Rani, Judicial Member II):

This appeal under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been directed against the judgment and order dated 11.03.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Haridwar (hereinafter to be referred as the District Commission) in consumer complaint No. 464 of Industries

2013 styled as M/s Ganpati Packaging Engineering Industries Vs. Executive Engineer, E.D.D., Haridwar wherein and whereby the consumer complaint was allowed.

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in brief, are as such that an electricity connection No. 5220 was taken by respondent – complainant for earning livelihood for self and his family. That the respondent – complainant is an industrial unit having sanctioned load of 26KW. The meter installed at the premises of the respondent – complainant was not giving correct reading. The employees of the Electricity Department placed a check meter and from the MRI it was discovered that the meter was not recording full consumption and was recording less units than actually consumed. Thereafter the check meter was installed on 15.07.2013 and it was finalized on 09.08.2013. The respondent – complainant has made a payment of Rs. 32,805/- to the Electricity Department. The Electricity Department has issued electricity bill of Rs. 2,15,875/- for the period from 01.12.2012 to 09.08.2013 showing slow reading and indicating excessive units alongwith penalty charges, which is totally incorrect as per law. Thereby the Electricity Department has made deficiency in service, therefore, the complaint was filed.

3. In the written statement, the Electricity Department has averred that the electricity connection was obtained by the respondent – complainant for commercial purpose and it was also still being used for commercial purpose, hence the complaint is not maintainable. It is further averred that the appellants – Electricity Department has taken MRI of the meter and from the perusal of the MRI, it was discovered that the meter was not recording full consumption and it was shown less units than actually consumed, thereafter the check meter was installed on 15.07.2013 and check meter was finalized on 09.08.2013. From the result of the check Industries meter it was found that the old meter was running 53.47% slow and the actual load on the meter was 40.35% and 42KW instead of sanctioned load of 26KW. The MRI kept the record of the meter for past months / years and it can be known from reading of the MRI the date / period for less recording in the meter. The respondent – complainant was aware of this fact that MRI has been taken and less recording of meter has been found from 01.01.2013. It is wrong to aver that the employee of the Electricity Department has made an illegal demand from the respondent – complainant. The bills dispatched from the Electricity Department to the respondent – complainant are correct and according to actual reading, hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4. After hearing both the parties and after perusing the record, the learned District Commission passed the impugned judgment on 11.03.2016 wherein it is held as under:-

“f”kdk;rdrkZ dh ;g f”kdk;r mijksDrkuqlkj Lohdkj dh tkrh gSA fookfnr fcy eqc0 2]68]173@&:0 fujLr fd;k tkrk gS rFkk foi{kh dks vknsf”kr fd;k tkrk gS fd