PICCADILY HOTEL PVT. LTD. vs S.D.O., ELECTRICITY

IN this complaint filed under Section 17 read with Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1976 [for short hereinafter referred to as the C.P. Act], the complainant Piccadily Hotel Pvt. Ltd. through its authorised representative Shri Anup Jamwal seeks quashing of the bills for consumption of electricity installed in the Hotel located in S.C.O. No. 1078-85, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh which have been annexed as Annexure C-3.

THE complainant has further prayed that the opposite parties be directed to refund the amounts of the said bills to the petitioner with suitable compensation, interest and costs. THE complainant is having three electric connections bearing Account Nos. (1) 101-2213/726413-K (2) 101-2213/7263-G-1X and (3) 101-2213/726412-H. THE bills in question Annexures C-2 and C-3 relate to the account numbers shown at Item No. 3 i.e., 2213/7726412-H. THE amounts involved in the two bills are for a sum of Rs. 3,19,463/- and Rs. 96,747/-, if paid, on or before the due date which is shown as 7.9.1998 for payment in cash and 4.9.1998 for payment by cheque. Annexure C-2 is copy of the letter issued by the S.D.O. Electricity to the complainant-Piccadily Hotel Pvt. Ltd. bearing Memo No. 3586 dated 26.11.1998 mentioning that two electricity bills amounting to Rs. 3,19,863/- and Rs. 96,747/- are sent for payment. THE complainant has challenged these two bills on the ground, inter alia, as under: The complaint Case No. 36 of 1998 was filed by the complainant against the opposite parties and the same was decided by this Commission vide order dated 7.9.1999. The opposite parties failed to comply with the directions within the period allowed by the Commission and thereafter a petition under Section 27 of the C.P. Act was filed which was pending before this Commission. A request was made by the complainant to the opposite party that the meters installed at the premises of the petitioner were running fast and the meters did not depict the actual consumption of the electricity by the petitioner which resulted in issuance of the inflated bills. The opposite party No. 1-S.D.O., Electricity, O.P. Sub-Divin. No. 1, Sector 23, Chandigarh got these meters checked by the laboratory of the department and intimated to the petitioner vide Memo No. 1934 dated 27.7.1998 that the meters installed at the premises of the petitioner were running fast @ 3.5%. The said contention of the opposite party was, however, challenged by the complainant on the ground that the meter was running much faster than reported by the opposite party No. 1 and a request was made for checking of the said meters from some other independent laboratory which was not done. The opposite party No. 1 issued the two disputed bills on the basis of average and these bills were based on average charges as the meters installed at the premises of the petition were running slow. It is alleged that no details whatsoever were given by the department as to who inspected the meters and got the same tested/checked. It was contended that the bills on average basis cannot be issued without referring to the Meter Inspector, even if the meter is defective. These two disputed bills were not included in the Complaint No. 36 of 1998 and the cause of action arose to the complainant during the pendency of that complaint, hence the amounts of the disputed bills were not included in the order passed by this Commission on 7.9.1999.

The opposite parties filed written statement to the complaint case through S.D.O., Electricity/opposite party No. 1 and contended that all the details were already supplied to the complainant and the amount in dispute has also been kept in suspense as per order of this Commission. It was alleged that the complainant had challenged only one electricity meter bearing Account No. 101-2213/726413-K by depositing the request challenge fee vide Receipt No. 89/1357 dated 3.7.1998 [copy Annexure R-1]. The aforesaid meter was replaced on 12.7.1998 vide meter change order No. 72/248 dated 10.7.1998 [Copy Annexure R-2]. The challenged meter No. CHP-1143 was sent to M&P Lab for testing which was declared fast by 3.5%. The complainant was informed vide Memo No. 1934 dated 27.7.1998 about the test result. It was further contended that an inspection was carried out of the site of the complainant on 28.8.1998 by a checking party comprising three Sub-Divisional Officers of different Sub-Divisions of Electricity Department and meters as well as load of the site was checked vide reports Annexures R-3 and R-4. The checking party detected that the complainant was using the excess load unauthorizedly for 250.880 KW against the sanctioned load of 199.800 KW. The meter bearing Account No. 101-2213/246413 was running slow by 66.17% and meter bearing A/c. No. 101-2213/726412 was running slow by 14.2%. It was further contended that the whole checking was carried out in the presence of the representative of the complainant who refused to sign the report and remark to this effect was made on the report by the checking party. Both the accounts, it was alleged, were accordingly overhauled by the Department correctly and the two bills of short assessment as worked out were tendered to the complainant vide Memo No. 2220 dated 28.8.1998 as has also been referred to in para 7 of the complaint and photocopy of the Memo was annexed as Annexure R-5. It was contended that as the amounts were charged on the basis of fresh checking report, it has no relevancy with the existing Complaint No. 36 of 1998. Reference was made to Section 26(2) of Indian Electricity Act, 1910 whereunder any party could refer the case to the Chief Electrical Inspector and not to the Meter Inspector as stated by the complainant. The opposite parties acted as per rules of the Department and the complainant has not requested to refer the case to the Chief Electrical Inspector.

THE complainant filed affidavit of Shri Girraj Parsad Sharma, Assistant Manager Accounts in Piccadily Hotel Pvt. Ltd. and verified the contents of the complaint as true and correct to the best of his knowledge and as derived from the records and account books maintained by the complainant company. Along with the affidavit, a letter signed by the General Manager (Finance) of the complainant addressed to the S.D.O., Electricity, Sub-Division No. -1, Sector 23-D, Chandigarh on the subject "Request/challenge the bills sent vide Memo No 3586 dated 28.11.1998" was annexed. On behalf of the opposite parties, affidavit was filed by Shri Deepak Bansal, S.D.O, Electricity, O.P. Sub Division No. 1, Sector 23, Chandigarh who has supported the case of the opposite parties as set out in the written statement. THE opposite parties filed by way of additional evidence Annexure R-7 which is dated 9.10.198 and the same has been referred to in the affidavit of Shri Deepak Bansal, S.D.O., Electricity. In the additional affidavit, averments have been made regarding the checking of the bills for the amount in dispute i.e., Rs. 3,19,463/- and Rs. 96.747/-. Annexure R-7 is the report made on the S.J.O. [Sundry Jobs Order] indicating the tampering of metering due to which the meter was found running 66.17% slow. In para 8 of the additional affidavit, it was deposed as under: "8. That to check the cause of excessive slowness of 66.17% of meter No. CHP-2341, its connections were further got checked by issuing sundry job order (S.J.O.) 72/85 dated 9.10.1998."

In para 9, it was deposed as under: "9. That the report made on the S.J.O. clearly indicate the tampering of meter due to which meter was found running 66.17% slow. Copy of S.J.O. attached as Annexure R-7."

The learned Government Pleader Mr. K.C. Sahu, for the opposite party drew our attention to the evidence placed on record which we have referred to above and has contended that the complainant has failed to show that the bills in dispute were wrongly issued and that these bills were liable to be quashed and the amounts of the bills were liable to be refunded. On the other hand Mr. K.C. Sahu, Government Pleader submitted that the material placed by the opposite parties on record clearly showed that the complainant had tampered with the meter in question and as a result of which the meter was running slow by 66.17%. The affidavit of Shri Girraj Parsad Sharma, Asstt. Manager (Accounts) has been controverted by the evidence of the opposite parties who have substantiated their case as set out in the written statement. It is relevant to note that the complainant had not complained about the meter in question and made no request for testing of the same in the laboratory of the opposite parties.

WE are of the considered opinion that the opposite parties have successfully shown that the bills in question have been rightly issued to the complainant and these bills are not liable to be quashed and the amounts of the bills are not liable to be refunded to the complainant. It is also noteworthy that though the earlier complaint was pending at the time when these bills were issued but the complainant did not think it appropriate to include these bills in the earlier complaint by seeking amendment of the complaint case and, therefore, the complainant cannot legitimately make reference to the averments made in the earlier complaint case or to the order passed by this Commission in the earlier complaint case. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find no merit in this complaint, which is dismissed. The cost shall, however, be borne by the parties themselves. Copies of this judgment be supplied to the parties free of charges. Complaint dismissed.