Delhi

North East

CC/506/2014

Sh. Ajit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

B.S.E.S - Opp.Party(s)

26 Apr 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

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

 

Complaint Case No.506/2014

 

In the matter of:

 

	Shri Ajit Singh U-277 Purana Basti, Ghonda Shahdara, Delhi 110053.	Complainant
	Versus
	BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. District Yamuna Vihar, Shahdara Delhi 110053.	Opposite Party

 

	DATE OF INSTITUTION:	05.01.2015
	RESERVED FOR ORDER:	17.04.2018
	DATE OF DECISION:	26.04.2018

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

Ravindra Shankar Nagar, Member

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member:-

ORDER

1. The complainant has submitted that he had an electricity connection bearing CA No. 101340715 (CRN No. 1250105883, Meter No. 23104501) which is existing in the name of his late father Shri Bhule Singh who expired on 26.09.2005 but even after death of his father, the electricity consumption was continued by the complainant on regular payment of bills to OP. It has been further submitted that the meter reading on 12.07.2014 was 14285 and the copy of the electricity bill due date 03.09.2014 has been submitted in this regard by the complainant. Further, it has been submitted that the said Meter bearing no. 23104501 got burnt on 11.08.2014 which was reported by the complainant to the OP with request to replace the meter which at that time was showing reading as 14750 on 11.08.2014. Thereafter, the burnt meter was removed on 10.10.2014 and was replaced by OP with a new meter bearing no. 11620939 and a copy of the letter dated 10.10.2014 in this regard has been filed by the complainant. It has been further submitted that necessary formalities were completed by OP and the burnt meter was sent for laboratory testing. After due testing and analysis the meter was actually found burnt and ordered to be scrapped. Copy of analysis report bearing no. 346896 dated 21.10.2014 issued by BYPL Laboratory, Savita Vihar, Delhi showing the last meter reading at 14750 is attached by the complainant. It has been further reported by the complainant that thereafter, a bill for the period 12.07.2014 to 13.10.2014 was sent by the OP which showed that total consumption for this period was 5067 units and the total amount for the aforesaid units was worked out at Rs. 42,225/- to which an arrear of Rs. 73,266/- was added and as such as aggregated bill of Rs. 1,15,490/- was raised on complainant. The copy of bill has been attached by complainant. Further, a bill for the period 13.10.2014 to 12.11.2014 showing the consumption of 397 units for a sum of Rs. 2358.82p was raised by OP. A copy of bill is attached. It has been submitted by complainant that the billing of 5033 units done by the OP is not only without any basis but wholly illegal and arbitrary in view of the fact that the meter reading as on 12.07.2014 was admittedly at 14285 and that it was at 14750 as on 11.08.2014 when the meter was burnt meaning thereby that the consumption for the period 12.07.2014 to 11.08.2014 i.e. for one month was 465 units (14750 minus 14285). Therefore, the consumption for three months for the period from 12.07.2014 to 13.10.2014 should not have exceed 1395 (465 x 3). Moreover, the meter was replaced on 10.10.2014 and admittedly consumption for three days was recorded at 34 units (10.10.2014 to 13.10.2014). If this is taken as base, the consumption for three months is again worked out as 1020 units. Therefore, the case of the complainant is that the OP had made arbitrarily excess billing upon the complainant which is liable to be rectified. It has been further submitted that this is not the first instance of high handedness meted out by the OP as earlier also, a huge amount of Rs. 69,390/- was included in the complainant’s bills under the Head “Other Charges” which was outstanding in the name of one Ratan Singh alias Ranjit Singh in respect of his disconnected connection CA No. 101341071 which was installed at 164 Village Ghonda, Delhi and in this respect a separate consumer complaint no. 372/2013 titled “Ajit Singh V/s BSES” was filed by the complainant before this Forum. Further, it has been submitted by the complainant that despite the fact that the matter of recovery of Rs. 69,390/- is sub judice before the Hon'ble Forum, the official of OP had regularly been harassing and torturing the complainant and his family member in one way or other and recovery agents of OP make visits at residence of the complainant while the complainant is away at work and use insulting language and threaten to deposit the amount to prevent disconnection of electric supply. One such threatening was caused in May 2014 which compelled the complainant to deposit a sum of                     Rs. 9,500/- and a copy of pay slip dated 27.05.2014 for the above amount is annexed.  Thereafter, a notice u/s 56(1) of Indian Electricity Act 2003 dated 07.07.2014 had been issued by OP demanding a sum of Rs. 97,070/- with a threat of disconnection of supply and a copy of that notice is attached. It has been submitted that the complainant lodged a written complaint dated 31.07.2014 before DGM (Commercial) of OP in this regard but OP didn’t pay any heed to grievance of complainant. Rather, complainant was forced to deposit minimum Rs. 20,000/- if not the entire amount as per their record. The complainant has attached a copy of this complaint, copy of pay slip dated 31.07.2014 for Rs. 20,000/-. In view of the above grievance, the complainant was constrained to file the present complaint alleging that this conduct of OP clearly establishes that OP is indulging in unfair trade practice but also amounts to rendering deficient service to its customer which has caused considerable monetary loss, mental and physical harassment to the complainant for which the OPs are liable to be prosecuted and as such the complainant has prayed vide the present complaint that OP may be directed to issue an amended bill in respect of consumption for the period 12.07.2014 to 13.10.2014 and also pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant on account of mental and physical harassment besides, Rs. 11,000/- to be paid as litigation cost.
2. The complainant has attached a copy of electricity bill issued by BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. for an amount of Rs. 69,580/-, due date of which was 03.09.2014. Further a copy of investigation / testing of removed meter dated 10.10.2014 has also been attached alongwith energy meter test/ analysis report no. 346896 dated 21.10.2014. Further electricity bills for Rs. 1,15,490/- due date 03.11.2014 and  for Rs. 1,19,060/- due date 02.12.2014 has been attached.  Further, a copy of pay-in-slips for an amount of Rs. 9,500/- dated 27.05.2014 and Rs. 20,000/- dated 31.07.2014 has been attached. Besides, a copy of notice for disconnection of electricity supply dated 07.07.2014 alongwith a complaint made by complainant to the DGM (Commercial) dated 03.08.2014 has been attached.
3. Notice under section 13 CPA 1986 dated 06.01.2015 was issued for appearance of OP on 09.02.2015 which was duly served on the OP.
4. Written statement filed by OP on 26.03.2015 wherein it was informed that the bill of complainant has already been revised by OP, leaving no further grievance of complainant and it is implied that the complainant is unnecessarily dragging the present litigation with an intension to get undue benefits. Further, the present complaint is not maintainable as the complainant is was not a registered consumer of the OP and moreover, the complainant has no privity of contract with OP and therefore, OP cannot be held accountable to the grievance of complainant. It has been submitted further by OP that bill of complainant has been revised taking upon the disputed period as 12.07.2014 to 09.10.2014, after taking upon the base period from 03.06.2013 to 12.07.2014 and  as such, the chargeable units comes to 1416 on the basis of above calculation, necessary credit of Rs. 33,287/- has already been allowed on the connection of complainant in proportion to 3617 units credit which was adjusted/deducted from the wrongly calculated units of 5034 units, waiving LPSC of                  Rs. 19,383/- and thereafter, the complainant paid amount of Rs. 13,460/- on 02.03.2015 declaring the action of the OP as just and right.
5. The rejoinder was filed by complainant wherein it was intimated that the OP has corrected the bill in question by allowing credit of Rs. 33,287/- but in view of aforesaid correction made by OP, it is now established that OP was not only indulging in unfair trade practice but was also deficient in rendering due services to consumer and it is established that OP has redressed the grievance of complainant for over billing only after summoning by this Forum probably in a bid to save its face. Further, complainant averred that the only issue which was left to be decided by this Forum was the quantum of compensation to be awarded to complainant for mental and physical harassment caused by OP besides granting suitable litigation cost meted out by complainant in prosecution of the present proceedings.
6. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by OP wherein it reiterated its defence taken in the written statement.
7. Written arguments were filed by the complainant and OP   
8. We have heard the oral arguments of both the parties and have perused the documentary evidences submitted by parties in support of their contentions. It is not in dispute that the OP has already revised / corrected the bills in March 2015 before filing its written statement leaving no further grievance to the complainant in this regard. However, present complaint was pressed by the complainant for the issue of grant of compensation for the mental and physical harassment caused by the OP to the complainant as well as granting litigation cost to the complainant for which we are of the considered view that since the OP had  acted promptly realizing its error of incorrect billing for the period of July 2014 to October 2014 and revised / corrected the reading of the complainant in the subsequent bills and generated correct and acceptable bills thereafter after adjusting the units wrongly calculated and giving due credit of the same to the complainant, though in the entire process OP took three months time, but in an organization of the size and nature of OP, the process / procedure has to be ratified / sanctioned / approved at various levels which is time consuming specially in such bill reversal / revision cases, we do not deem fit that any compensation be awarded to the complainant for mental or physical harassment in the present case since the defective bills were raised on complainant by OP by way of demand payable between September 2014 to December 2014 and the same were revised / corrected by the OP in March 2015. However we award a sum of Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant payable by the OP towards cost of litigation since the complainant had to file the present complaint through counsel due to non resolution / non redressal of his grievance regarding inflated and incorrect bills raised by the OP in the disputed months. Let the order be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
9. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
10. File be consigned to record room.

(Announced on   26.04.2018)       

(N.K. Sharma)     President

(Sonica Mehrotra) Member

(Ravindra Shankar Nagar) Member