Writ Petition No. (M/S) 1211 of 2009 v. Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd

Judgment

1. The petitioner was a consumer of electricity, which was being distributed to the petitioner by the licensee known as Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd., Dehradun. The petitioner contends that a bill was issued to him to the tune of ‘18,75,952/- on 6.10.2008. The petitioner disputes this bill and has straightaway filed a writ petition before this Court. The contention of the petitioner is that this bill could not have been given to the petitioner, as prior to this bill a bill to the tune of ‘1,79,236/- was already issued against the petitioner, of which final payment had already been made. The very contention of the petitioner is that since the final payment had already been made, the new bill could not have been issued against the petitioner. Now the petitioner has filed the writ petition in which a leaned Single Judge of this Court vide its order dated 3.8.2009 has stayed the further proceedings against the petitioner regarding the recovery of the amount given in second bill dated 6.10.2008.

2. Before the petitioner could proceed on merits of the case, learned senior counsel appearing

respondents Mr. B. D. Upadhyaya has pointed out that the petitioner has an alternative remedy to raise his 2 grievance before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, which has been constituted under the regulation (cid:147)Uttarakhand Electricity Regulatory Commission Regulations, 2003 the State of Uttarakhand and further petitioner can file an appeal, if the occasion so arises against the order of the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, before the Ombudsman, which has been constituted under the Regulation 3 of Chapter III of the Uttaranchal Electricity Regulatory Commission. Learned senior counsel for the respondent relied upon sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 42 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The relevant provision relating to duties of distribution licensee and open access reads as under:- (cid:147)42. Duties of distribution licensees and open access. (1) (cid:133) (2) (cid:133) (3) (cid:133) (4) (cid:133) (5) Every distribution licensee shall, within six months from the appointed date or date of grant of licence, whichever is earlier, establish a forum for redressal of grievances of accordance with the guidelines as may be specified by the State Commission. the consumers (6) Any consumer, who is aggrieved by non- redressal of his grievances under sub-section (5), may make a representation for the redressal of his grievance to be known as Ombudsman to be appointed or designated by the State Commission.(cid:148) to an authority

3. It is an admitted fact that both the (cid:147)Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum(cid:148) and (cid:147)Ombudsman(cid:148) have been constituted in the State of Uttarakhand by means of a regulation known as (cid:147)Uttarakhand Electricity Regulatory Commission (Guidelines For Appointment Of Members And Procedure To Be Followed By The Forum For Redressal Of Grievances Of The Consumers) 3 Regulations, 2007. As per the said regulations, the word (cid:147)complaint(cid:148) has been defined under Section 2(1)(d), which reads as under:- (cid:147)2. Definitions: 1. (cid:133) (a) (cid:133) (b) (cid:133) (d) (cid:133) (d) (cid:147)Complaint(cid:148) means the letter or application filed with the Forum seeking redressal of grievances concerning the supply of electricity, new connection or the services rendered by the Distribution Licensee, including alteration in load/demand, meters related matters, bill related issues and Cases where licensees has charged price in excess of the price fixed by the Commission or has recovered the expenses incurred in excess of charges approved by the Commission in providing any electric line or electric plant. Matters falling, within the purview of any of the following provisions of the Act will not form a Complaint under these Regulations: (i) Unauthorized use of electricity as provided under section 126 of the Act; (ii) Offences and penalties as provided under section 135 to 139 of the Act; (iii) Accident in the distribution, supply or use of electricity as provided under section 161 of the Act; (iv) Recovery of arrears where the bill amount is not disputed.(cid:148)

4. Therefore the word (cid:147)complaint(cid:148) has a very wide definition including a dispute relating to bill related issues which is by and large a dispute raised by the petitioner. All the same, in case the petitioner still contends that he cannot raise this issue before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum by way of complaint he may apprise the same issue before the commission, which will take a decision on it.

5. Since the petitioner has an alternative remedy, learned senior counsel for the respondents in order to strengthen his objection has relied upon a decision of Hon(cid:146)ble Apex Court in Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission Vs. Reliance Energy Ltd. and 4 others reported in (2007) 8 SCC 381 where the Hon(cid:146)ble Apex Court has held that where a Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and Ombudsman have been created under sub-section (5) and (6) of Section 42 of the Electricity Act, respectively, the real efficacious remedy of the petitioner is to approach these authorities in the first instance. The relevant paragraph of the aforesaid decision reads as under:- to as referred created by to sub-section (cid:147)33. As per the aforesaid provision if any grievance is made by a consumer, then they have a remedy under Section 42(5) of the Act and according (5) every distribution licensee has to appoint a forum for redressal of grievances of the consumers. In exercise of this power the State has already framed the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and Ombudsman) Regulations, 2003 (hereinafter (cid:147)the 2003 Regulations(cid:148)) and created Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and Ombudsman. Under these 2003 Regulations a proper forum for individual redressal of the grievances of consumers has been Commission. Therefore, now by virtue of sub- section (5) of Section 42 of the Act, all the individual grievances of consumer have to be raised before this forum only. In the face of this statutory provision we fail to understand how could the Commission acquire jurisdiction to decide the matter when a forum has been created under the Act for this purpose. The matter should have been left to the said forum. This question has already been considered and decided by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Suresh Jindal v. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. and Dheeraj Singh v. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. and we approve of these decisions. It has been held in these decisions that the forum and ombudsman have power to interim orders. Thus a complete machinery has been provided in Section 42(5) and 42(6) for redressal of grievances of individual consumers. Hence wherever a forum/ombudsman have been created the consumers can only resort to these bodies for redressal of their grievances. Therefore, not 5 much is required to be discussed on this issue. As the aforesaid two decisions correctly lay down the law when an individual consumer has a grievance he can approach the forum created under sub-section (5) of Section 42 of the Act.(cid:148)

6. It is also held in the aforesaid judgment of Hon(cid:146)ble Apex Court that both the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and Ombudsman have power to grant interim relief to the consumer as well. Therefore the petitioner will be at liberty to raise the prayer for grant of interim relief before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and Ombudsman, in case he so desires.

7. Meanwhile, since the petitioner was granted ad interim relief by this Court on 3.8.2009, the same shall remain effective for a period of four weeks from today. It is made clear that the interim order dated 3.8.2009 shall automatically stand vacated after four weeks.

8. This being the admitted position of law, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.

9. No order as to costs. Kuldeep (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.)

28.8.2012