Delhi

East Delhi

CC/337/2017

SUNDER LAL SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

BSES - Opp.Party(s)

11 Dec 2019

ORDER

                DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

                 CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092                                  

                                                                                               

                                                                                                 Consumer Complaint no.       337/2017                                               

                                                                                                 Date of Institution               06/09/2017

                                                                                                 Order reserved on               11/12/2019

                                                                                                 Date of Order                       13/12/2019                                                                            

In matter of

Mr. Sunder Lal Sharma    

R/o  15/253, Chilla Khadar,

Kalyan Puri, Delhi-110091……………………………...…………….Complainant                                                       

                                                                          

                                                                    Vs

1-M/s Business Manager,

BSES Yamuna Power Ltd.

Sub Station Building,

Mayur Vihar Phase 1, Delhi 110091………………………………Opponent

 

Complainant                                    In Person

Opponent’s Advocate                    Mr Imran Siddique Advocate &  

                                                           Mrs Renu Bala Thukral-Manager Commercial/AR  

 

Quorum     Sh Sukhdev Singh      President

                    Dr P N Tiwari              Member

                    Mrs Harpreet Kaur    Member                                                                                                   

 

Order by Dr P N Tiwari, Member 

Brief Facts of the case                                                                                                

Complainant senior citizen and resident of 22 yards house at Chilla Khadar at Kalyan Puri, Delhi (Ex CW1/1) having electricity sanctioned load of 2 KV. It has been stated that meter installed at his jhuggi was faulty since its installation vide CA no. 101127553 meter no. 11519344 had 459 units of consumption in 57 days and had charges due of Rs 1310/-and another electricity consumption bill Rs 1130/-on 16/01/2017 which were paid though complaint was already given for replacing the faulty meter (Ex CW1/2A). After clearing excess charges, electricity meter was replaced vide meter no. 35132740 whereas charges were shown for previous meter and current charges were Zero (Ex CW1/4,4A).

It was stated that after running 20 days, meter display got defective so again written complaint was done to OP/ BSES Sub Station at Mayur Vihar Phase 1 on 02/08/2016.

After inspection by OP team, faulty meter was again replaced to new meter no. 35181907, but after 57 days, consumption bill pertaining to replaced earlier faulty meter no. 35132740 was a hefty and excess charged bill of Rs 10,000/-was given as a routine bill. It was submitted by complainant that he never had such huge consumption, so immediately gave written representation to CEO at BSES Head Office at Karkarduma, Delhi, but despite of repeatedly visiting Regional (OP) and Head office, no satisfactory reply was given.

 

It was stated that OP never served notice, but hefty bills were supplied and complainant had paid as per demand. In a sanctioned load of 2KV only one cooler, one fan and four LED bulbs could not consume heavy units and OP was giving average unit based bills per month. It was stated that intentionally faulty electricity meters were supplied which resulted in burning of meter and various defects in sensor, chip so repeatedly developing defects in meters, but OP never paid attention towards complaints given by complainant and even visiting personally.

 

It was stated that due to faulty installation of electricity meters, load of 4968 units were shown in just 488 days and charged on average basis ignoring slab rebate concession provided by Delhi Govt. despite of lodging objections, OP did not care and complainant was asked to pay in cash which was not possible. Being a poor person earning on daily wages, had to loss his daily employments which further enhanced to earn bread and butter for his family. Despite of paying his bills, dues of Rs 3168/-were pending on his part whereas amount paid was excess to slab rates also (Rs 6-1/2/per units) were charged. So filed this complaint and prayed for correction of bill as per slab and excess charges collected be refunded with compensation Rs 20,000/- for mental and physical harassment along with loss of daily wages for 30 days Rs 15,000/-.

 

After receiving notice, OP through their Head Office, filed written statement and denied all the allegations leveled against them. It was stated that the present OP replaced burnt meter vide no. 11519344 when complaint was received from complainant on 08/06/2016 and bill was raised for consumed units 183 units for Rs 880/-, but on audit it was found that actual consumption was 2960 units based on lab report (Ex OPW/1), so balance units 309 charges were charged.

It was submitted that again meter was changed on 03/08/2016 vide meter no. 35132740 which too was faulty and did not show meter reading so charged on average basis, but after lab testing, it was seen that actual consumption was 1497 units (Ex OPW1/2). So bill of Rs 24550/- was raised, but after complainant’s objection, bill was adjusted to Rs 10,004/-. Allegation of complainant that no relief was given by OP under slab system benefit was totally wrong. When raised due bill was not paid despite of reminding, disconnection notice was served u/s 56(1) of Electricity Act, 2003. The raised amount was paid in cash by complainant. Hence there was no deficiency on the part of OP and this complaint had no merit so complaint be dismissed.

Complainant filed rejoinder to WS and denied replies submitted by OP. It was stated that all the facts were correct and true. He repeatedly stressed that OP installed faulty meters and raised hefty bills based on average consumption basis. It was stressed that complainant being a poor man residing in a small plot of 22 yards could never consume thousands of units. OP never installed genuine meter and always faulty meter was installed by OP. Whenever complaint was lodged, OP installed faulty meter. It was further stated that OP submitted two lab testing reports, but never informed complainant nor taken his signatures as it was necessary to take signature of complainant while meter was taken for testing. Despite of raising hefty bills, complainant was paying, but balance amount could not be paid as he had no money, but OP issued disconnection notice and somehow the balance amount was paid. Hence the harassment was due to OP’s installation of faulty meters. Complainant submitted his evidences through his own affidavit and stressed that all his evidences were correct and on record. He relied on evidence CW1/1, 2 &2A where wrong bills were served at his jhuggi. It was due to faulty meters, heavy unit consumptions were shown and so bills were coming wrong. He also stressed that he was never shown test report and lab reports were handed over without taking his signatures. Also It was submitted that OP never put any evidence of misuse before complainant. Hence prayed for considering his prayer.  

OP filed evidence on affidavit through Md Renu Bala working as Commercial Officer at OP office and denied all allegations of deficiency in services. It was stated that complainant had not paid dues so disconnection notice was given, but later complainant paid the due and remaining amount would be paid on actual tariff. It was admitted that two lab reports showed actual units and bill was given for payments as balance unit charges. As there was some error in calculating actual units of consumption, so consumer/complainant was asked to pay his balance payment.

Complainant also submitted his written arguments where he stressed the deficiency of OP for installing faulty meters at his jhuggi. He stressed that he never consumed electricity illegally and his average units consumption was much less than shown by OP due to installing faulty meters repeatedly which resulted harassment and financial loss, so taken on record.   

Arguments heard from both the parties. During the course of arguments, it was admitted by the complainant that he was supplying electricity to outsiders occasionally. OP argued that they did not take any action against him, but replaced meters as and when complaints pertaining to defects in meter was received and outstanding consumption charges were also due which was admitted by the complainant too. After perusal of file, order was reserved.

After scrutinizing all facts and evidences submitted by the parties, it was evident that OP installed meters as when complaint were received, but outstanding charges were due which was admitted by the complainant. That being so, we come to the conclusion that this complaint has no merit as no deficiency could be seen on the part of OP so complaint deserves to be dismissed, but OP is directed to recover old dues as per their procedure without putting LPC.

The first free copy of this order be sent to the parties under the Regulation 18 (6) of the Consumer Protection act, 1986 (in short CPR) and file be consigned to the Record Room under Regulation 20 (1) of the Act.

 

(Dr) P N Tiwari  Member                                                                          Mrs Harpreet Kaur-Member

                                                                Sukhdev Singh  President