District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No.001/2022.
Date of Institution: 04.01.2022.
Date of Order: 23.08.2022.
Naresh Chand Verma aged about 68 years S/o late Shri Ram Chander Verma R/o House No. 573, Sector-21D, NIT, Faridabad, District Faridabad. Aadhaar No. 9527 2287 1464.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam through its Sub Divisional Officer (OP) Sub Division, F-14 No.4 HR, NH-IV, NIT, Faridabad.
…Opposite party……
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
PRESENT: Sh. Y.P.Minocha, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. R.K.Bhati, counsel for opposite party.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant was a permanent resident of House NO. 573, Sector-21D, Faridabad an electricity connection bearing account No. 7990640000 had been installed at the above said premises/house of the complainant. The opposite party issued electricity bill bearing No. 79060562956 dated 06.01.2020, to be paid on or before 16.01.2020. With the permission of SDO of opposite party office paid an amount of Rs.10,000/- as part payment through debit card on cash counter of opposite party office on 23.01.2020. In the next Bill No. 7799065827113 dated 05.03.2020 again opposite party shown the arrear of Rs.26,971.83 round figure Rs, 26,972/- without deduction of the paid amount of Rs.10,000/- as mentioned in the above para. The opposite party again issued the bill for the month of March 2021 for Rs.1,134,84/- alleging therein a sum of Rs.10,279.05 as arrears illegally and unlawfully. Thereafter the complainant approach the opposite party got it corrected and the complainant deposited the actual consumed energy charges of Rs.1,135/-. The complainant previously filed the application vide No. 3190 dated 18.01.2021 and on which, the excess amount was corrected but thereafter, the Nigam/opposite party sent another bill by mentioning illegal dues and on the request of the complainant the said bill got corrected. However, at that time, the complainant requested the opposite party to update the records and the officials of the opposite party assured the complainant that the correct bill will be sent in future. Still a sum of Rs.10,000/- was outstanding against the Nigam and the said amount was liable to be adjusted in the bills of the complainant and also to make interest and to waive off the alleged surcharged imposed by the Nigam on the consumed energy charges of the bills of the complainant. The complainant received bill No. SB21EE1202149QUS4592 bill month May, 2021 dated 12.05.2021 n which consumed charges Rs.1,547.71 but in the said bill illegally mentioned the arrears of Rs.10,474/-. However, a sum of Rs.10,000/- of the complainant is already lying with the Nigam. Now the complainant again received another bill bearing No. SB21G092149QUS2966 dated 09.07.2021 for Rs.25,250/- and illegally mentioned the arrears of rs.10,764/- and the opposite party had willfully did not deduct/adjust the above said amount of Rs.10,000/- which had been continuously remained outstanding against the opposite party. Opposite party issued a bill bearing No. 799063129880 dated 07.09.2021 and bill of the month November 2021, where the arrears which was paid earlier was not adjusted. Further the opposite party issued a bill dated 08.11.2021 of Rs.13,035/-. However the Consumer approached to the SDO and after hearing the Consumer the SDO settled the bill charges and asked the consumer to pay sum of Rs.1570/- only and further asked the consumer to wait for the final settlement which was still pending at the end of the opposite party. The aforesaid act of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite party to:
a) adjust the excess amount of Rs.10,000/- which the complainant had already deposited with the opposite party, in the present bill and also waive off the unnecessary penalty, interest, surcharge etc.
b) update its records in respect of electricity account No. 7990640000 and to correct bill in future.
c) pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
d) pay Rs. 22,000 /-as litigation expenses.
2. Opposite party put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the complainant had concealed the true and material facts form the Hon’ble Court. It was submitted that the electricity connection bearing account No. 7990640000 under DS category was released by the opposite party to the name of complainant Shri Naresh Chand Verma at the aforementioned premises. The electricity bill dated 06.01.2020 for the period from 09.11.2019 to 06.01.2020 was issued to the name of the complainant for Rs.26,212/- (after Govt. subsidy) including arrears of Rs.24,248.82 on account of non payment of previous unpaid bills amount. The complainant failed to pay the said amount b ut alleging that he paid Rs.10,000/- as part payment through debit card at the cash counter of the opposite party on 23.01.2020 but the complainant failed to provide the receipt if issued from the cash counter of the opposite party because the payment receipt had the swiping ID number by which it could be searched that at which counter the debit card was swapped. By showing the debit card statement, it could not be said that the said amount was paid in the office of SDO(OP) Sub Division No.4, NIT, Faridabad. It was also submitted that if the payment was made through debit card for some other person or in other sub division even then in the statement of debit card it reflects the payment to DGBVNL but will not confirm that to which sub division, the payment was made. The confirmation of sub division would be form the ID mentioned on the payment receipt issued by the cash counter. Hence, the debit card statement was not a proof of payment at cash counter of sub division No.4, NIT, Faridabad. It might be in some other sub division or the payment for some other person. Further, if the SDO allows any consumer for making part payment then he mentioned on the electricity bill as PP(part payment) showing the part payment amount and puts his signature then he was allowed to make the part payment. Opposite party denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
The complainant has led in evidence Annx..C-1 – bill dated 16.01.2020 for Rs.26,972/- Annx.C-2(colly) – Account ledger inquiry, Annx..C-3 – bill issue dated 05.03.2020,, Annx.C-4 – receipt, Annx.C-5 & 6- bills, Annx. C-7 – application for correction in electricity bill bearing No. SB21G092149QUS2966 pertaining to A/C. No. 7990640000. Annx.C-8 (colly) – bill dated 17.09.2021,Annx. C-9 – bill dated 08.11.2021.
3. Counsel for the complainant has also filed an application to adjust the amount of Rs.10,000/- already deposited by the applicant/complainant, in future bills. Reply to application has not been filed.
4. After going through the evidence led by the complainant, the Commission is of the opinion that the complaint is disposed off with the direction to opposite party to over haul the account of the complainant and adjust an amount of Rs.10,000/- on the next billing cycle. Opposite party is also directed to waive off the surcharge after filing of the complaint of the disputed bill. There are no orders as to costs. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced on:23.08.2022 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
