AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners, Assistant Engineer, Jaipur Vidyut Vitram Nigam Ltd. & Ors. against the order dated 31.05.2011 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench 3, Jaipur, Rajasthan (for short, 'State Commission') in FA No. 1037/2005.
Brief facts of the case are that in June, 2004 the petitioners raised a bill to the respondent for Rs.44,564/- for consumption of 1054 units alongwith an additional amount of Rs.1,07,607/- vide notice bearing No. 2322 dated 11.3.2004 and in total Rs.1,52,171/- to be deposited by 23.6.2004. However, when the respondent approached the petitioners seeking clarification of the said additional amount of Rs.1,07,607/-, it was informed that the said additional amount was on the basis of notice bearing No.2322 dated 11.3.2004 thereby remaining the electricity meter of the respondent being on phase II w.e.f. 1.8.2003 to 20.1.2004 and due to which only 2/3rd electricity was recorded and as such the said additional amount was for another 27105 units so consumed by the respondent in the said period. On 23.6.2004, the respondent however, after deducting the said additional amount of Rs.1,07,607/- deposited the remaining amount with the petitioners. The respondent approached the settlement committee of the petitioners thereby agreeing to deposit 50% of the said additional amount with the petitioners. The settlement committee headed by the Executive Engineer, Kota of the petitioners dismissed the representation of the respondent vide order dated 16.3.2005 against the said additional amount of Rs.1,07,607/- due to the respondent with respect to the notice bearing No. 4133 dated June, 2004 and directed the respondent to deposit the same with the petitioners by 19.3.2005 failing which directing the petitioners to disconnect the electric connection of the respondent. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the settlement committee, the respondent filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum against the petitioners on 22.3.2005. The petitioners duly contested the matter and filed its written statement. The District Forum vide order dated 2.6.2005 allowed the complaint of the respondent directing the petitioners not to claim the said additional amount of Rs.1,07,607/- as claimed by the petitioners in view of its notice bearing No.4133 dated June, 2004 and further to refund the said 50% deposited amount with respect thereto to the respondent alongwith simple interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of payment till realization or to adjust the same in future bills alongwith the interest accrued thereon. The petitioners were also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to the respondent towards mental, financial and physical hardships and Rs.400/- towards cost of litigation. Being aggrieved from the order of the District Forum, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission vide order dated 31.5.2011 holding therein that there was no fault in the order of District Forum which requires interference. However, the rate of simple interest was reduced from 12% p.a. to 9% p.a. Hence, this revision petition.
Respondent was already proceeded ex parte vide order dated 29.9.2015 of this Commission. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that it was found one phase was not connected to the meter and the meter was only recording 2/3rd of the electricity consumed and therefore, when it was detected, the additional bill for the amount of Rs.1,07,607/- was sent in June, 2004 for payment. The District Forum has allowed the complaint and has cancelled the bill of Rs.1,07,607/- . Approximately 50% of this amount of Rs.54,000/- was already deposited by the complainant as compromised for getting the re-connection of electricity. The District Forum has allowed refund of this amount alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. or adjustment in the future bills. The State Commission upheld the order of the District Forum but has reduced the rate of interest from 12% p.a. to 9% p.a. It was argued by learned counsel that the department is duty bound to recover the amount not paid by the complainant for the consumed electricity. Hence, it was requested to set aside the orders of the fora below and to allow the revision petition.
I have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and examined the record.
It is clear that staff of the petitioners only had pointed out the defect in the meter that it was not recording one phase of the current, though the lc for petitioners has argued that the fault was already found in the testing report of the laboratory. It is seen that the State Commission has clearly given its following observation that the meter was not tested by any lab :
"There is no record that meter was wrong. In Dalpat Singh Vs. Punjab Electricity Board, learned Punjab State Commission in III 1997 CPJ 217 has opined that if there is a fault in the meter, only then additional recovery could be effected. However, when there is no fault in the meter, nor the meter was sent in the laboratory for testing nor it was sent by the Electricity Inspector, there is no need of interference in the findings of the District Forum."
From the above observation of the State Commission, it is clear that the meter was not tested by any laboratory even in the revision petition no such test report of any lab has been filed alongwith revision petition and therefore, it is difficult to agree with the arguments of the learned counsel that the meter was found defective in a laboratory test.
It is not the case of the petitioners that the complainant had disconnected one phase or he was stealing the electricity. Because there was some defect in the meter, it was the duty of the petitioners to inspect whether absence for one phase was due to any tinkering done by the complainant with the meter. No such report is filed. Perhaps this could have been filed only if the meter was tested in a lab.
Both the fora below have given concurrent findings so far as facts are concerned and the scope under the revision petition is quite limited in such cases as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors. Vs. H&R Johnson (India) Ltd. and others, (2016) 8 Supreme Court Cases 286, the following has been observed:
"23. The National Commission has to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it only if the State Commission or the District Forum has either failed to exercise their jurisdiction or exercised when the same was not vested in them or exceeded their jurisdiction by acting illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission has certainly exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside the concurrent finding of fact recorded in the order passed by the State Commission which is based upon valid and cogent reasons."
It is clear from the above judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that it is difficult for this Commission to reassess the facts against the concurrent findings of facts given by fora below. Both the fora below have found that the meter was not defective and even if there was some error, the complainant was not responsible for the same. No legal point is involved in the revision petition and the orders of fora below are on the basis of findings given on facts.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has also stated that the petitioners does not earn any interest on the amount deposited by the consumers and therefore, award of interest @ 9% p.a. by the State Commission is also not justified. In this regard, I am of the view that interest @ 5% p.a. shall be more than reasonable in this case as the amount was deposited voluntarily by the complainant.
Based on the above discussion, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity in the order dated 31.5.2011 passed by the State Commission except that the order in respect of the rate of interest @ 9% p.a. is not sustainable and the same is modified to the extent that the amount shall be refunded with interest @ 5% p.a. instead of 9% p.a.. With these observations, the revision petition stands disposed of.