AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS appeal has been directed by the complainant against order dated 9.6.2005 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh, whereby her complaint was disposed of by observing that the respondents would not charge minimum charges from the appellant, w.e.f. 30.4.2000 till connection was restored on 5.4.2004, but she was not entitled to claim any damages, as no evidence has been led to prove that she has suffered any damages.
BRIEFY stated the facts are that the appellant is the owner of SCO No. 49, Sector-30-C, Chandigarh. The respondents had provided an electric connection in the said premises in the year 1972. In fact, three meters were installed in the said premises, as it was a three-storey building. The sanctioned load in the year 1972 was 5.20 KW. Account Nos. 3008/70492, W 7049, TW/7492 were assigned to the appellant. The said premises was let out at a monthly rent of Rs. 45,000 to one Danesh Kumar son of Sh. Hem Raj of Sangrur, on 29.3.1999. Out of the rental income, Rs. 12,000 p.m. were used to be paid to the Income-tax Department. Sh. Danesh Kumar had opened liquor vend on 1.4.1999. It was next averred that in the year 2000, respondents served notice dated 23.3.2000 to the appellant to the effect that she had unauthorizedly extended the load of electricity against account No. 3008 and directed her to deposit Rs. 3750 within a week, failing which the electric supply to the SCO was to be disconnected.
It was further averred that the said notice was false and was given with mala fide intention to harass her tenant and at no point of time, more electricity was used than sanctioned load and, thus, there was no question of depositing the amount as demanded in the notice. However, on the receipt of the notice, her tenant vacated the premises, and since 31.3.2000 the said premises was lying locked and the electric supply was disconnected by the respondent on 31.3.2000. However, the respondent kept on sending the electricity bills.
IT was further averred that she had sent reply in response to the notice dated 23.3.2000 by denying the allegations and requested them to carry out checking of the premises, after giving prior notice to her and also requested to refer the case to CBI for necessary action. After waiting for sufficient time, she served even notice upon the respondent on 11.7.2003, but to no effect. With these allegations, she prayed that the notice issued by the respondents and the subsequent bills raised by them should be quashed and they should be directed to pay compensation amount to the tune of Rs. 35,000 p.m. for the loss suffered by her due to their illegal action.
THE complaint was also filed against SDO, Water Supply, Sub-Division No. 9, by making him as respondent No. 4 but during the pendency of the proceedings, compromise took place with him and as such vide order dated 24.9.2004 the proceedings were dropped against respondent No. 4 and his name was ordered to be deleted from the array of respondents. The respondents contested the claim and filed joint reply. They denied the allegations and stated that the meter was checked by the Junior Engineer on 3.3.2000 and found that both M & T seals had been tampered with and connected load was found to be 5.20 KW against the sanctioned load of 0.520 KW and compensation amount was calculated to the tune of Rs. 3750 on account of unauthorized load which the appellant did not deposit and as such the electric supply to the premises of the appellant was disconnected on 5.8.2003 from the pole because the meter could not be removed from the premises which was found locked since 23.6.2000. The appellant had been using the load of 5.20 KW against sanctioned load of 0.520 KW. The supply could not be disconnected and meter could not be removed as the premises was found locked and the bills were issued to him continuously even when she did not use even a single unit, because the account was running and could not be closed due to non-removal of the electricity meter from the premises. They further stated that once checking had been carried out and accepted by one Ramesh Kumar, so, there was no question for getting the premises rechecked. They further stated that the meter had been changed vide MCO No. 56/800 dated 17.5.2004, effected on 20.5.2004 as the earlier one was a tampered meter. They next stated that reply to the notice dated 11.7.2003 was sent to the Advocate vide office letter No. 12 of 2003, and as such they prayed that the complaint be dismissed. Parties led their evidence by way of affidavits.
AFTER hearing the Counsel for the parties, the District Forum-I, disposed of the complaint vide order dated 9.6.2005, as stated in the earlier part of the judgment.
AGGRIEVED by the said order, the complainant has filed the present appeal. We have heard Mr. Raghupartap Singh Sarai, Advocate for the appellant, Mr. C.D. Ranga, Govt. Pleader for respondents, and carefully gone through the file.
Counsel for the appellant contended that notice issued to the appellant, Annexure R-1 on the basis of checking report Annexure R-2, was false and, in fact, there was no unauthorized extension of load against Account No. 3088/70492W installed at SCO 49, Sector-30, Chandigarh, as the sanctioned load to the premises was 5.120 KW as mentioned in the bills and the appellant had been using the said load for the last 27 years. A perusal of the photocopy of the checking report dated 3.3.2000 shows that the meter was checked and it was found in working order but both M & T seals were tampered with. There was unauthorized load to the extent of 5.020 KW, accordingly notice Annexure R-1 was issued and the appellant was requested to deposit Rs. 3750 as compensation amount for unauthorized load of 4.500 KW @ Rs. 750 per KW, within seven days. Admittedly, the appellant had received the said notice through some person, might be tenant, but she did not deposit the amount within seven days or thereafter. The connection was not disconnected after expiry of one month from 30.3.2000, as the premises was found locked. The connection was also not disconnected from the pole. However, ultimately it was disconnected from the pole on 5.8.2003 which was subsequently restored by reconnecting from the pole on 5.4.2004. The appellant had deposited Rs. 10105 under order of the District Forum and it was to be decided later on, whether it had been correctly deposited or not. The District Forum had categorically held that respondents were not to charge the appellant minimum charges from 30.4.2000 till the connection was restored on 5.4.2004. It might obviously be for the reasons that there was lapse on the part of respondents as they did not disconnect the electric connection from the pole on 30.4.2000 or 1.5.2000, if the premises was found locked.
RATIONALIZATION of instructions regarding sale of power, Instruction No. 35, Sub-clause 4(iv) reads as under: Before allowing reconnection, defaulting amount, if any, reconnection fee, service meter rentals and monthly minimum charges for the entire period of disconnection shall be recovered. Therefore, the respondents could charge the penalty levied on account of unauthorized load amounting to Rs. 3750, defaulting amount, if any due, reconnection fee and service meter rental. They, however, cannot charge minimum monthly charges for the entire period because the same has been disallowed by the District Forum and no appeal has been filed by the respondents on this score. It is also stated in Instructions in Sub-clause 3(ii) that in any case, if the connection is not disconnected permanently after expiry of one month from the date of temporary disconnection, it shall be deemed to have been disconnected permanently after a period of one month, and levy of minimum charges to be discontinued thereafter. Since, respondents failed to disconnect the connection from the pole permanently after expiry of one month from the date of temporary disconnection, so, District Forum rightly disallowed the minimum charges for the period commencing from 30.4.2000 till the connection was restored on 5.4.2004. Therefore, after deducting the amount of compensation of Rs. 3,750, reconnection charges, any other amount due, and meter rental, the balance of Rs. 10,105 be refunded to the appellant within a month. If, it is not refunded within a month, then the respondents would pay interest @ 12% p.a.
COUNSEL for the appellant contended that the written reply filed by the S.D.O. of the electricity department was not valid as he was not competent to file the written reply on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. It is true that SDO was not competent to file written reply on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as per instructions given in Annexure A, which is on page 7 of the file, according to which the Secretary, Chief Engineer, Superintending Engineer and Executive Engineer can file the written reply or suit on behalf of the Board and not the SDO. These are instructions of Punjab State Electricity Board, which are also applicable to the Chandigarh Electricity Department. However, even if present written reply is not considered valid on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, then it be considered valid on behalf of the SDO, because he is a party and he can file written reply in his individual capacity and not on behalf of the electricity department. Counsel for appellant further contended that the premises was let out at a monthly rent of Rs. 45,000 to Danesh Kumar son of Sh. Hem Raj but due to illegal action of the respondents, her electricity connection was disconnected, so, he left the premises on 1.4.2000 and since then, the same is lying vacant and causing loss to her to the tune of Rs. 35,000 per month. However, there is no cogent evidence on the file to prove that she had suffered any loss. A perusal of agreement of lease deed dated 1.4.1999 shows that the premises was let out to Danesh Kumar S/o Sh. Hem Ram at monthly rent of Rs. 45,000 for eleven months commencing from 1.4.1999 and the tenancy expired on 29.2.2000. He was running liquor business and that business is for a fixed period, because every year contract of liquor is auctioned. He had left the premises because he might not have been able to get liquor vend for the next year, so, it cannot be said that since Danesh Kumar had vacated the premises, so, she suffered loss. Certainly, there was extension of load, otherwise, it was difficult to believe that in one floor of the show room there was only .520 KW of load. It is reasonable to presume that load must be 5.0 KW or more. Thus, no fault can be found with the checking report of the Junior Engineer.
HENCE, in view of the limited observation made above that the respondents are directed to refund the remaining amount, if any due, the appeal is dismissed, with no order as to costs. Copies of the order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. Appeal dismissed.