SAMAY SINGH vs Delhi Vidyut Board

THE present appeal has been filed by the appellant against order dated 28.4.1999, passed by the District Forum, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi in Complaint Case No. 67/1998 - entitled Shri Samay Singh v. Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking.

THE appellant had filed a complaint before the District Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') stating therein that the appellant is being provided electricity through Meter No. 1448460 bearing K. No. 129545 installed at the shop of the appellant. That the premises where the aforesaid electric connection had been installed is a small shop where the appellant, being an oldman sells sweets, toffees to school-going children in order to pass his time. It was the case of the appellant in his complaint filed before the District Forum that the bills were being raised in respect of the said connection, on minimum consumption basis, as only one bulb and one small fan is being used in the said premises, and that too for 6 to 8 hours only during the day. However, the appellant received an exhorbitant bill for April, 1995 wherein misuse charges have been levied. THEreafter also the appellant received bill for Rs. 4,870.84 p. for June, 1995 and another provisional bill for the month of August, 1995 for the amount of Rs. 5,958.56 p. THE appellant on the receipt of the bill for April, 1995 contacted the concerned officers of the respondent for rectification of the bill, but instead of rectifying the same, the appellant was threatened with dire consequences. Even the written complaints of the appellant were ignored by the respondent. THErefore, the appellant had to approach the learned District Forum by filing a complaint praying for directions to the respondent to cancel the bills for the months of April and June, 1995 and to revise the bills on the basis of actual consumption based on the actual meter reading. It was also prayed by the appellant in his complaint that the misuse charges levied be also refunded as the same were levied without proper inspection and without looking into the factual position. THE appellant had also prayed for grant of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for the mental agony, fatigue and torture undergone by him, as well as Rs. 1,100/- towards cost of litigation. The respondent in its reply/written version, filed before the District Forum had denied the contents of the complaint and had stated that two connections, namely K. No. 013-856332/DL/Z-208 registered in the name of Shri Balwant Singh, the brother of the appellant and the other K. No. 512-129545/DL/Z-208 in the name of the appellant Shri Samay Singh had been sanctioned for domestic purposes. Misuse charges had been levied on K. No. 013-856332/DL/Z-208 registered in the name of Shri Balwant Singh from 28.10.1991 onwards for three years. On the representation of the said Shri Balwant Singh, misuse charges levied on said K. No. 013-856332/DL/Z-208 had been withdrawn and levied on the other K. No. 512-129545/DL/Z-208 which was installed at the shop of the appellant as it had been reported by the concerned MRI on an inspection that the supply of electricity for the shop in question was being received from K. No. 512-129545/DL/Z-208, and not from K. No. 013-856332/DL/Z-208. It was further the case of the respondent in its reply/written version, filed before the District Forum that even as per the own admission of the appellant in his complaint, the connection sanctioned was for domestic purposes was being misused for commercial purposes i.e. for running a shop and, therefore, the levy of misuse charges was justified and the bills containing the misuse charges were correct and legal and there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent in that regard. Furthermore, the appellant had not been making regular payment in respect of the bills for the electric connection installed at his shop and for the said reasons, arrears had accumulated.

In view of the material on record the learned District Forum partly allowed the complaint of the appellant directing the respondent to revise the bills in accordance with actual meter reading or minimum consumption basis as the case may be and also to afford three months time to the appellant to make payment of the outstanding bills. However, the learned District Forum declined the prayer of the appellant with regard to the waiver of minuse charges on the ground that as per the own admission of the appellant, the electric connection in question, though sanctioned for domestic purposes was being misused for commercial purposes i.e. for running a shop.

AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid order, the appellant has preferred the present appeal before this Commission. We have carefully perused the documents/material placed on record, as well as, have gone through the written submissions filed on behalf of the appellant. We have also heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length on the merits of the case. The main ground for challenging the impugned order by the appellant is that the misuse charges have been wrongly levied by the respondent without taking into consideration the factual position at site and without serving any notice and as such the learned District Forum had wrongly concluded that the levy of misuse charges by the respondent was appropriate. The said contention of the appellant appears to be justified in view of the fact that originally the misuse charges were levied with respect to the electric connection in the name of the brother of the appellant installed at different premises. However, on the representation of the said Shri Balwant Singh, brother of the appellant, an inspection was carried out and it was recorded by the concerned M.R.I. (Meter Reading Inspector) who submitted his report dated 20.4.1995 that the misuse charges levied on the electric connection No. 013-856332/DL/Z in the name of Shri Balwant Singh be transferred to the electric connection bearing K. No. 013-856332/DL/Z in the name of the appellant. The report dated 20.4.1995 of the MRI (placed on record at pages 15-16 of the paper book) is very pertinent for the purpose of deciding the controversy in question. The relevant portion of the said report reads as under : "Misuse on K. No. 013-856332/DL was levied w.e.f. 28.10.1991 with effect from last three years on date 16.7.1990. As regards to the other K. No. 512-129545/DL which is existing in the shop, the connection was energised on date 21.11.1990 and this connection is in the name of Shri Same Singh s/o Shri Balwant Singh, Village Qutabgarh. On going through the meter book, the following statement No. 7 are recorded in it : 1. I.R. No. 221125 dt. 24.12.1993 Tobacco shop. 2. I.R. No. 258962 dt. 26.8.1994 Parchun shop. 3. Statement No. 7 shop at site dt. 22.12.1994. In view of the above, the case file is put up for your kind consideration and to approve for withdrawal of levied misuse against K. No. 013-856332/DL from the date of levy as recommended by MRI and it may be charged against K. No. 512-129545/DL since 21.11.1990, the energisation date of K. No. 512-129545/DL as per recommendation of MRI pl."

THE above said inspection report nowhere specifies the usage of premises where the electric connection K. No. 013-856332/DL was installed. This being relevant as the misuse charges were originally levied in respect of the said connection. Furthermore, the inspection report records the usage of the premises in question on 24.2.1993 as a tobacco shop and as on 26.8.1994 as purchun shop and merely a shop as per inspection held on 22.12.1994. It is however nowhere specified as to whether the observations at Sr. Nos. 1 to 3 refer to the same shop or to different shops. Nor does it specify as to which connection is installed in the shops as mentioned. In any case, the mere fact that the misuse charges levied on another connection in the name of different person have been transferred to the electric connection in the name of the appellant, itself reflects gross deficiency in service on the part of the respondent as no notice or opportunity to explain his case was granted to the appellant before levying the misuse charges. As such in the circumstances of the case, the appellant was also entitled to the relief claimed in respect of misuse charges. Therefore, the present appeal is allowed and the findings of the learned District Forum on the said issue are set aside. The misuse charges levied in the bills of the appellant are quashed. The respondent is directed to raise revised bills in respect of K. No. 512-129545/DL minus misuse charges. However, the respondent is given the liberty to take appropriate action in respect of levy of misuse charges after giving due notice and affording an opportunity to the appellant of being heard. The present appeal, filed by the appellant stands disposed of in above terms. Appeal disposed of.