RAM LAL ASHOK KUMAR vs ELECTRICITY DEPARTMENT, U.T., CHANDIGARH

-THIS appeal has been filed by the complainant against judgment and order dated 8.4.2004 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh [for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum] vide which the Complaint Case No. 824 of 2002 was partly allowed.

THE appellant challenged the levy of a sum of Rs. 28,151/- as sundry charges in respect of electricity meter installed at Restaurant Site/Booth site No. 141, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh having Account No. 307/3511/77411WU. THE meter got burnt and remained in the same condition for a period of 13 months and, thereafter, it was replaced by another electricity meter. A bill dated 6.6.2002 was issued to the complainant, which included the aforesaid sundry charges of Rs. 28,151/-. The grouse of the complainant was that no details regarding sundry charges were given. The complainant also contacted the Sub-Divisional Officer, Electricity, Sub-Division No. 7, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh arrayed as O.P. No. 2 and protested against the levy of sundry charges. Subsequently, the O.Ps. informed the complainant that the aforesaid amount of Rs. 28,151/- had been charged as average charges for the period of 13 months w.e.f. January, 1996 to February, 1997. The average was calculated @ 1264 Units per months, which was on the basis of the changed meter and on the basis of the average shown in the changed meter from February, 1997 to December, 1997.

The complainant challenged the levy and recovery of sundry charges on the grounds that the O.Ps. had no right to levy such heavy amount under sundry charges as the charges were not sundry; (ii) the aforesaid amount could not be charged for a period relating to the period of more than 5 years earlier as the same was highly belated and time-barred; (iii) the stand taken by the O.Ps. that the meter was burnt and replaced was quite false and concocted and the O.Ps. have taken too long a time to replace the meter, which showed callousness on the part of the Electricity Department; (iv) if the meter was burnt, it was the duty of the O.Ps. to replace or repair the meter so the complainant cannot be penalized for the lethargy of O.Ps; (v) no prior notice/intimation was given to the complainant for imposition of this sundry amount and lastly (vi) as per the settled law vide various judgments, the Electricity Department had no right or authority to levy the disputed charges in the specific facts and circumstances of the case. In the complaint, the reliefs sought were as under: (i) "Quashing the impugned demand of the amount of Rs. 28,151/- charged under the head "Sundry charges" in the bill Annexure P-1; (ii) Declaring that this amount is neither leviable nor payable by the complainant; (iii) Award costs of this complaint to the tune of Rs. 7,500/- as incurred by the complainant. (iv) Any other relief be granted to the complainant as may be deemed fit and appropriate in the particular facts and circumstances of the present case."

UPON service of notice of the complaint case, the O.Ps. appeared and filed joint written statement. In the defence, which was set up, a preliminary objection was taken that the complainant was not a consumer as the meter stood in the name of one Shri Surinder Lal. It was further contended that the complaint was not maintainable. Regarding the merits of the case, it was contended that the new meter started showing actual consumption as per the load at site being a Restaurant-cum-Sweet hot w.e.f. February, 1997 onwards and the replaced meter had been recording consumption between 1200 and 1300 units per month approximately. The sundry charges of Rs. 28,151/-, it was averred, had been correctly included in the bill dated 6.6.2002. During the audit by the internal audit short assessment during the period from January, 1996 to February, 1997 was pointed out though the amount of Rs. 28,151/- was charged under the head of "Sundry charges" @ 1264 units per month. These facts were explained to the complainant who visited the office of the O.Ps. and the complainant was allowed to pay the disputed amount in three instalments. It was also mentioned that the complainant never represented to the O.Ps. in writing that the bill was excessive rather he was allowed to make the payment in instalments. The levy of sundry charges was defended on the ground that they were legal and justified and based on actual consumption after the replacing of burnt meter with correct meter. The allegations of deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps. were denied.

THE complainant filed his affidavit and placed on record copy of disputed bill dated 6.6.2002 Annexure ''A'' showing sundry charges of Rs. 28.151/-. THE District Forum held that the objection of the complainant that under the heading "Sundry charges", the aforesaid amount of Rs. 28,151/- cannot be charged, was legally not maintainable and repelled the said objection. Regarding the delay in the replacing of the burnt meter and in raising the demand of about 4 or 5 years, the District Forum held that the period of limitation as far as the Government department is concerned, is of 30 years and the said objection lacked merit. Regarding the preparation of the bill in which the disputed amount of Rs. 28,151/- was raised as sundry charges, it was held by the District Forum that the O.Ps. did not follow Instruction No. 11 of the Sales Manual and, as such, the demand raised by the O.Ps. of a sum of Rs. 28,151/- was not legal and, hence, they committed deficiency in service. In view of the last mentioned finding regarding the demand raised by the O.Ps. of a sum of Rs. 28,151/- being not legal and the O.Ps. committing deficiency in service the complaint was partly allowed and the O.Ps. were directed to rectify the deficiency in service by withdrawing the sundry charges of Rs. 28,151/- included in the bill dated 6.6.2002. The District Forum, however, issued several other directions, which read as under: "...... However, the current consumption of this bill is kept intact. So far as the sundry charges are concerned, the O.Ps. shall raise the demand for the same by taking the average of the consumption for a period of six months i.e., for a period from 1.7.1995 to 31.12.1995, in accordance with the provisions of instruction No. 115 of the Sales Manual and the directions given in this order, and shall serve the same under registered cover on the complainant within two months from the receipt of certified copy of this order. The complainant shall be under liability to pay the amount of such sundry charges bill served on them within one month from its receipt by them failing which the O.Ps. shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. However, while preparing the fresh bill for sundry charges, the O.Ps. shall not impose surcharge for late payment...................." The cost of the litigation were directed to be borne by the parties themselves. A careful perusal of the record of the complaint case, which was summoned from the District Forum will go to show that the complainant set up a clear and specific case wherein levy of sundry charges of Rs. 28,151/- was challenged and a relief was sought regarding the same being not leviable by the O.Ps. and payable by the complainant and the quashing of the sundry charges aforesaid in the bill in question was prayed for. The complainant also prayed for costs of sum of Rs. 7,500/-. It is well settled principle of law that the District Forum is required to adjudicate the case as set up in the complaint case and the relief is either to be granted or refused on the basis of the findings recorded by the District Forum keeping in view the dispute raised by the O.P. In a complaint case filed by the complainant, no directions can legally be issued to the complainant. At the same time, the scope of the complaint case cannot be enlarged by issuing various directions to the O.Ps., which have not been asked for or prayed in the complaint case by the complainant.

IT is also significant to mention that the O.Ps./respondents did not file any appeal against the impugned judgment and order vide which the complaint was partly allowed and the direction was made for withdrawing the sundry charges of Rs. 28,151/- and it shows that the O.Ps. accepted the findings of the District Forum that the demand raised by the O.Ps. was not legal and they had committed deficiency in service. Once this finding is upheld, its effect would be that the complainant would be entitled to have the demand of sundry charges of Rs. 28,151/- included in the bill dated 6.6.2002, quashed and leaving the O.Ps. to their next course of action, which they could take in view of instructions referred to in Instruction No. 115 of the Sales Manual. The case of the respondents/O.Ps. was to be considered insofar as it effected the right of the complainant in claiming the reliefs but the case set up in the written statement about which, there was no reference in the complaint case could not legally be adjudicated and relief granted to the O.Ps. who were not the complainants before the District Forum. The various directions, which have been issued and which have been extracted above, in our considered opinion, could not have been issued by the District Forum. There is no reference to any evidence led before the District Forum to prove that the meter, which was installed by the O.Ps. in place of the burnt meter was defect-free and a standard meter, which could be relied upon for noting down the consumption of electric energy for a particular period to work out the consumption of electric energy for the period in dispute for which sundry charges have been calculated.

RESULTANTLY, the appeal is allowed to the extent that the order of the District Forum is modified to the extent that the levy of sundry charges of Rs. 28,151/- included in bill dated 6.6.2002 is quashed and the directions issued to the complainant as also to the O.Ps. are also set aside. The respondents will be at liberty to consider the case for consumption of electricity for the period in question as per the relevant rules and regulations including Instruction No. 115 of the Sales Manual. The complainant shall get a sum of Rs. 300/- as costs of this appeal. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. Appeal allowed.