Delhi

StateCommission

FA/546/2014

BRIJ MOHAN AGGARWAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

BSES YAMUNA POWER LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

03 May 2018

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Arguments :  03.05.2018

Date of Decision :  01.06.2018

FIRST APPEAL NO.546/2014

In the matter of:

 

Brij Mohan Aggarwal (since deceased)

Through LR’s

Manjula Aggarwal,

Anil Aggarwal,

Rekha Aggarwal,

R/o. 24, West Patel Nagar,

New Delhi.                                                                                 .........Appellants

 

Versus

 

BSES Yamuna Power Ltd.,

Having its registered office at

Shakti Kiran Building,

Karkardooma, Delhi-110092.

 

Service to be effected through

BSES Yamuna Power Ltd.,

Through Business Manager,

Sub-station Building, Block-18,

East Patel Nagar,

New Delhi-110008.                                                      ….....Respondent Party

                                                               

CORAM

 

Hon’ble Sh. O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

Hon’ble Sh. Anil Srivastava, Member

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                       Yes/No

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                     Yes/No

Shri O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

JUDGEMENT

 

          The complainant has come in the present appeal against order dated 30.04.2014 passed by District Forum-III in CC No.884/2008 vide which the complaint was dismissed,

          The facts recited in the order are that complainant was having sanctioned load of 1 KW of electricity for domestic use  for more than 40 years and average recorded consumption was  150-175 units for 2 months. In October, 2007 he received bill for 2 months for 3121 units amounting to Rs.12,300/-. He filed a civil suit which was pending. During pendency of the civil suit, meter of the complainant was changed on 18.11.2007. Vide order dated 26.02.2008 Civil Court directed the complainant to pay 50% of the old bill  plus current consumption charges which complainant paid. Since new meter was also showing excessive  consumption, complainant moved an application in  Civil Court which was disposed of vide order dated 28.08.2008 with the observations that since meter was changed during pendency of the suit, it was not the subject matter of the suit. Hence the present complaint was filed in District Forum.

          The complaint pertains to bill received in December, 2007 in which previous reading was shown as one unit as current unit was 207. Bill was issued for 839 units. Complainant moved OP for necessary correction with request that meter was running fast, therefore, it should be tested. OP did not correct bill nor testing the meter. Complainant continued to receive bills varying from 800 units to1300 units for 2 months which he kept on paying under protest. On 27.06.2008 OP tested the new meter and found the same within permissible limits of error. Complainant requested for use of external load of the meter so that it can be tested properly. OP did not do so. In October, 2008 complainant received bill for 1283 units and current charges  amounting to Rs.5,036.97/-.  He had already paid excess amount so bill was not paid by him. Complainant was aggrieved from the fact that by monthly bills were sent whereas monthly bills should be issued. He prayed for retesting of the meter by applying external load, for correction of the bill for December, 2007, stay of the said bill and sending monthly bills to him.

          OP filed application for non maintainability of the complaint which was later on withdrawn as not being pressed. Prayers for by monthly bills has already been  decided and disposed off by Ld. Civil Judge on 18.08.2008 copy of which was annexed by the complainant. Meter testing report of the changed meter was also called upon by  Ld. Civil Judge and request for again testing the same had been tested by Ld. Civil Judge. So the same could not be claimed.

          The District Forum found that sole issue  which survives was whether changed meter reading and bill issued was as per actual consumption or not and whether meter was tested corrected or not. The OP explained discrepancy in unit charge in bill for December, 2007 by stating there. The meter show consumption of 207 units for the period 19.11.2007 i.e. date of change of meter to 04.12.2007. In other words it was for 15 days  only. The bill was from the period 09.10.2007 and reading from 09.10.2007 to 19.11.2007 was not available. So the bill was assessed one for entire period for 09.10.2007 to 04.12.2007. OP denied that meter was not tested properly. The complainant were never regular in making payments and last payment was made in October, 2008 for Rs.10,000/- Complainant to failed to make the payment till August, 2010, after service of dis-connection notice dated 26.07.2010 he made the payment of Rs.54,929/- in October, 2010 under orders of the District Forum. OP pleaded that meter was tested by applying external load in the presence of complainant on 26.09.2010 and was found to be Okay.

          After going  through the material on records the District Forum found that according to 2 meter test report, meter of the complainant was found Okay. There could be many reasons for earlier meter showing less consumption. One might be that meter was slow or was tempered with once mechanical meter have been removed and one new meter had been installed which was found Okay after testing twice. There was no necessity for passing any order for retesting or giving any explanation with, respect to change in meter reading. Hence it found that the complaint to be devoid of merits the OP was directed to  issue bill after adjusting payment already made by the complainant and complainant was to pay the said bill on due date.

          In appeal the grievance of the appellant is that the District Forum did not consider decision of  civil suit and statement DW 1 in said civil suit and which he stated that they might be some marginal differences in reading of electronic meter against mechanical meter if same load is put for the same time on both the meters. We feel that  neither of the said two documents was material for the decision of the case and so non consideration there of is of no significance.

          The other grievance of the appellant is that  he moved an application for cross examining Shri Tarun Goel whose affidavit was filed by the OP in evidence,. The District Forum dismissed the said application on the ground that same was moved belatedly according to appellant delayed could have been compensate by cost. The same has no life any impression on our mind. Besides under Consumer Protection Act are summary in nature. They are decided by evidence of affidavit. Cross examination is allowed only in exceptional cases. The same can not be made a routine.

          Yet another grievance of the appellant is that during pendency of the complaint before District Forum some representative of OP came at the residence of appellant alongwith police officials and disconnected electricity supply. It was after much dialogue with the officer of the respondent that electricity was restored. Appellant moved an application under Section 27 under Consumer Protection Act before the District Forum for take action against the respondent as there was no order by the District Forum to make any payment by that time. Respondent file reply to the said application and arguments was addressed to the impugned order does not mentioned nothing about the said application.

          Firstly when there was no order by the District Forum, they could be  no execution. Moreover non disposal of the interim application is not sufficient to interfere with the main order. Thirdly a consumer is supposed to pay the bill month by month. No orders by the Forum are required for that purpose.

          On merits the only contention of the appellant is that since his consumption in the last 40 years was 150-175 units for 2 months, the respondent to assessed bills at said consumption. We are at a loss to appreciate the said arguments. Whenever any assessment is made on average based, it is the average of last six months which is seen and not the average of 6 years prior to period under assessment. Consumption of electricity is a think which can happen at any time. With the availability of new and new gazettes like AC, Geezer, Heater consumption is increasing in every family. Moreover capacity of the person to pay couple with level of comfort accepted, consumption is likely to rise.

          The respondent filed bill with date of print out as 24.04.2018. It is for Rs.2,38,960/- out of which Rs.1,72,385.35 are the arrears. The appellant filed objections to the said bill on 03.05.2018. According to him he had paid Rs.1,10,000/- under protest when his electricity was disconnected and meter was removed with police force. Further the bill shows Rs.65,756/- as LPSC charges, sanctioned loan is shown as 5 KW instead of 1 KW.

          We have heard both the parties on objections. We do not find any force in the objections. If a person does not making payment in time, LPSC is bound to be levied. Showing wrong sanctioned loan does not cause any prejudice to the customer. Bill is based on consumption as shown by the meter. The appeal fails and is dismissed. With this the interim orders restraining the respondent from disconnecting electricity supply stand vacated. A person can not be allowed to enjoy electricity without paying for the same.

          Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost. One copy of the order be sent to District Forum for information.

          File be consigned to record room.

 

 

(ANIL SRIVASTAVA)                                           (O.P. GUPTA)                                     MEMBER                                         MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

nk