Consumer protection Act - Non Installation of Meter and charging extra electric dues amount to deficiency in Service.

 

Consumer protection Act - Non Installation of Meter and charging extra electric dues amount to deficiency in Service.

 

Manager, CESU Angul Elect. Division and Ors. v. Gangadhar Das

Facts: The case of the Complainant in brief is that the complainant is a

‘consumer’ under the Opposite Parties since 1995 but no meter was installed. But the Opposite Parties Department was collecting dues for a consolidated amount on the basis of 1.5 KW and he has been regularly paying the said amount against Consumer No. 401-1920. On 31.1.2012, there was inspection made by the Department by the squad of the Opposite Parties and they found that the Complainant was using energy 5 K.W. beyond its capacity of 1.5 K.W. During inspection, there was some altercation between the J.E., Electrical and the Complainant with regard to non-installation of meter and extra electric dues charged. It is alleged that against the energy being consumed beyond the load the Opposite Parties Department whimsically made provisional assessment to which the Complainant made resistance as the Opposite Parties without having installed any meter made arbitrary charges showing same 5 K.W., for that he is put into mental harassment. As such, the complaint was filed before the District Forum. District Forum came to the conclusion that there is deficiency of service because the Opposite Parties have not behaved properly to the Complainant during the investigation on 31.1.2012 and made extra charges without any sort of sympathy to the Complainant. Accordingly, they directed to remove the deficiencies and directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation besides litigation cost of Rs. 2,000/- to the Complainant. This appeal is directed u/s. 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order passed by the learned district forum.

Issue: (i) Whether the Complainant has proved deficiency in service on the

part of the OPs so as to allow the reliefs prayed for? (ii) Whether the complaint petition which arises out of act done by elect. Division under the electricity act is maintainable at District forum?

Decision: Court held that complaint pleading that he protested about noninstallation of meter but the J.E., Electrical asked him to install his own

meter as per the provision of law but there are some unpleasant argument

held between the J.E., Electrical and the Complainant. However, Complainant

states in the complaint that he finally paid the enhanced electric dues but

filed the complaint due to misbehaviour by the J.E., Electrical. Opposite

parties filed written version accompanied with affidavit stating that on

31.1.2012, he has paid visit and found Complainant was using electric energy for a load of 5 KW against contract load of 1.5 KW and no meter was found there. So he prepared report which is not disputed and prepared the necessary arrears bills against extra electric dues used by the Complainant. The inspection report (Annexure - A) and authorisation slip shows that Complainant was using 5 KW load electric energy against contract load of 1.5 KW for which load was enhanced. Further notice for provisional assessment filed by the Opposite Parties shows that on 28.2.2012 provisional assessment bill has been issued for Rs. 3,278/-. The money receipt filed by the Complainant shows that he has paid enhanced bill for Rs. 4,540/-. From the above discussion, we do not find any departure on the duty discharge by the Opposite Parties. So far unpleasant behavior concerned, Consumer Forum is not the Forum to decide. So the finding of District Forum with regard to deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties is deplorable as it has found deficiency of service for the behavior meted out to the Complainant by the Opposite Parties.

Now, the question arises whether the complaint is maintainable?

Taking the view of the observation made in the U.P. Power Corporation Ltd.

and others v. Anis Ahmad, Court held:

(i) In case of inconsistency between the Electricity Act, 2003 and

the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the provisions of Consumer

Protection Act will prevail, but ipso facto it will not vest the

Consumer Forum with the power to redress any dispute with regard

to the matters which do not come within the meaning of “service”

as defined under Section 2(1)(o) or “complaint” as defined under

Section 2(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

(ii) A “complaint” against the assessment made by assessing Officer

under Section 126 or against the offences committed under

Sections 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is not maintainable

before a Consumer Forum.

(iii) The Electricity Act, 2003 and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

runs parallel for giving redressal to any person, who falls within

the meaning of “consumer” under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer

Protection Act, 1986 or the Central Government or the State

Government or association of consumers but it is limited to the

dispute relating to “unfair trade practice” or a “restrictive trade

practice adopted by the service provider”; or “if the consumer

suffers from deficiency in service”; or “hazardous service”; or

“the service provider has charged a price in excess of the price

fixed by or under any law. With due regard to the aforesaid decision, Court find, in the instant case, the complainant could have agitated the matter before the higher authority u/s. 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003.