Delhi

North East

CC/179/2018

Sh. Ashok Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

B.S.E.S. Yamuna Power Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

20 May 2022

ORDER

 

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 179/18

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

 

In the matter of:

 

	Shri Ashok Kumar S/o Virdi Chand R/o:- C-35, Gali No-9-A Gamri Extension, North East, Delhi-110053	Complainant
	Versus
	BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. Yamuna Vihar Delhi-110053	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:        JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION      :

27.08.2018 29.04.2022 20.05.2022

 

ORDER

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

 

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the pleadings is that the Opposite Party has issued him excessive electricity bill on 21.03.2016 for an amount of Rs. 7,790/-. Complainant went to the office of Opposite Party regarding the said excessive bill and informed Opposite Party that due to short circuit the meter jumped. An officer of Opposite Party told Complainant that meter was working properly and showing correct readings. Complainant showed previous bill to the Opposite Party officer in which bill was of less amount. Complainant had paid Rs. 7,790/- for the bill. Again on 23.07.2018 Complainant received a bill of Rs. 6,720/-. Complainant went to Opposite Party office and gave written complaint to Opposite Party but it is alleged by the Complainant that no action was taken. Opposite Party informed the Complainant that meter was working properly. Again on 23.08.2018 Complainant received bill of  Rs. 9,170/- and then the Complainant approached the Opposite Party but no action was taken by the Opposite Party.
2. Complainant has prayed for restraining the Opposite Party for issuing the excessive bill which he had already received. He has also claimed  Rs. 70,000/- compensation for mental harassment. He has also claimed Rs. 20,000/- as litigation charges.
3. Complainant has attached copy of bills, copy of written complaints and copy of meter testing report.

Case of the Opposite Party

4. The Opposite Party contested the case and filed written statement. The Opposite Party taken the preliminary objection that the complaint is false and frivolous, not maintainable and this forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the Complainant.  It is stated by the Opposite Party that payment received by the Opposite Party was Rs. 4,000/- on 15.09.2018. Opposite Party further submitted that total outstanding dues is Rs. 10,730/- for the month of December 2018. Opposite Party denied that due to wrong reading Complainant received bill of Rs. 7,790/- on 21.03.2016. It is also denied by the Opposite Party that the reading was recorded on higher side in the month of March 2016 due to short circuit. Opposite Party has submitted that consumption of 951 unit is recorded due to consumption of more load by the consumer and recorded MDI of that month was 3.72 kw.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party

5. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party wherein the Complainant has denied the preliminary objection raised by the Opposite Party and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

 

 

Evidence of the Complainant

6. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the assertions made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party

7. In order to prove its case, Opposite Party has filed affidavit of Shri Sanjay Ray, Commercial Officer, BSES, Yamuna Power Ltd. He has supported the case of the Opposite Party as mentioned in the written statement

Arguments & Conclusion

8. We have heard the Complainant and Shri Rajeev Ranjan, Manager (Legal) of the Opposite Party. We have also perused the file. The case of the Complainant is that he had received three electricity bills issued by the Opposite Party. The said bill was received by him in the month of March 2016 and July & August 2018. It is the case of the Complainant that the said three bills were around as the consumption recorded by the electricity meter was on the higher side as the meter jumped due to short circuit. On the other hand, the case of the Opposite Party is that the meter was checked in the presence of the representative of Complainant and it was found that meter was working properly.
9. The Complainant in Para No. 7 of his complaint has stated that when he approached the office of the Opposite Party and he was told by some officer of the Opposite Party that the electricity meter of the Complainant had been checked and it was found that meter was working properly. The Opposite Party has stated in its replied to the said Para No. 7 of the complaint that the meter was checked on 10.08.2018 in presence of the representative of the Complainant and it was found proper/correct.
10.  The Complainant has filed affidavit in support of his case in his affidavit he has not denied the fact that meter was checked by the Opposite Party in the presence of the representative of the Complainant. It is important to note that Complainant himself has filed the copy of meter testing report. Therefore, under these circumstances it is clear that the electricity meter of the Complainant was tested by the Opposite Party. The perusal of the meter testing report shows that meter was recording correct consumption. The Complainant has not challenged that meter testing report is not correct.
11. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint and same is dismissed accordingly.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President