Haryana

StateCommission

A/378/2015

DHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

BHAGWAN DASS - Opp.Party(s)

B.D.BHATIA

25 Jul 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                First appeal No.378 of  2015

Date of the Institution: 24.04.2015

Date of Decision: 25.07.2016

 

Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Ratia, District Fatehabad through SDO.

                                                                   .….Appellant

 

Versus

 

Bhagwan Dass S/o Raja Ram, r/o Village Khair, Tehsil Ratia, Distt. Fatehabad.

                                                                             .….Respondent

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.B.D.Bhatia, Advocate counsel for the appellant.

                    Mr.Ashok Arora, Advocate counsel for the respondent.

O R D E R

R.K.Bishnoi, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

          It was alleged by complainant that he was having domestic electric connection No.P-11-D/4715 at village Mehemdaki. As meter was burnt, the same was replaced with new one and thereafter bill was sent as per actual consumption.  In bill No.2411 dated 28.12.2013 Opposite party (O.P.) demanded Rs.1,09,355/-, which was altogether wrong.  He made representation before the department, but, instead of correction, it sent bill of Rs.1,13,231/-  and thereafter for Rs.1,21,584/- on 28.06.2013, whereas it was not entitled to recover this amount.

2.      O.P. filed reply controverting his averments and alleged that old meter of complainant bearing No.425457 was removed vide MCO No.50/785 on 16.11.2013 and new meter NO.5445036 was installed.  At the time of removal, old meter was showing reading of 20163 units. The old reading also tallied with  M&T lab verification report. He was asked to deposit the amount as per that reading.

3.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehabad (In short “District Forum”) allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 18.03.2015 and directed as under:-

 “The sequel of aforementioned discussion makes it clear that demand raised qua 20163 units is liable to be quashed. This complaint is hereby allowed and OP is directed to withdraw the bill qua the supplementary demand and to reconnect the electricity connection of the complainant.”

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.P. has preferred this appeal.

5.      Arguments heard. File perused.

6.      Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that when old meter was replaced as per MCO50/785 Ex.R-2 the meter was showing units consumed as 20113  so, this demand was raised from him.  From the perusal of ledger it is clear that no consumption was shown during the circle from July 2013 to November 2013.  Lateron this amount was added in his bill. 

7.      This argument is of no avail.  From the perusal of Ex.R-3, it is clear  that meter of complainant was burnt in the month of June 2013, but, even then demand was being raised as per consumption.  Bill Ex.C-19 was issued for the circle of 04.06.2010 to 04.08.2010 & shows units as 3873. From the perusal of the ledger, shown by the counsel for the O.P at the time of arguments it is clear that complainant hardly consumed units more than 100 prior to the month of June 2013. Even thereafter consumed units are approximately150-200 so how the meter has shown 20163 is no-where explained.  At the top of ‘meter change order’ date is mentioned as 19.06.2013 and at the bottom 16.11.2013 is written, wherein entered in movement card is mentioned.  O.P. are not clear about this anomally.  Even otherwise as per instruction No.4.15 issued by DHBVN on 30.06.2013, when there is  difference or  dispute about accuracy of meter then following procedure is to be followed.  Instruction No.4.15 is reproduced as under:-

                   “Differences or Dispute over the Accuracy:

Where any difference or dispute arises as to whether any meter is not correct, the matter should be decided, by the XEN M&P of the Nigam and if in his opinion the meter is not correct, the appropriate authority shall estimate the amount of adjustment to be carried out in the consumer’s account for a period of not exceeding 6 months preceding the date of test.”

8.      Hence the O.P. is directed to overhaul the account of the complainant as per instruction No.4.15 and adjust all the amounts paid by him.

9.      With this modification, appeal stands disposed off.

 

July 25th, 2016

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.