BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHABAD.

                                                           Complaint No.:334 of 2017.

                                                           Date of Instt.: 22.11.2017.

                                                           Date of Decision:10.07.2018.

Bharat Rawat, aged 44 years son of Laxman Singh, residence Hans Colony, Tehsil and District Fatehabad.

                                                                             …Complainant.

                             Versus

1.       Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Fatehabad through its Executive Engineer, Operation Division, Fatehabad, Tehsil and Distt. Fatehabad.

2.       Sub-Divisional Officer, Operation Sub Division, City Sub Division, Ratia, Tehsil Ratia, District Fatehabad.

                                                                             …Opposite Parties.

             Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Before:                Sh.Raghbir Singh, President.

                            Sh. M.K. Khurana, Member.

Present:                Sh.Ramanand, counsel for the complainant.

Sh.Parveen K.Jora, counsel for the opposite parties.

ORDER:

                             The present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by the complainant against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred as OPs) with the averments that the complainant is a resident of Hans Colony, Fatehabad and a domestic electricity connection bearing No.BK1D-0840 has been installed by the OPs in his house. Since the above said house was purchased by the complainant from one Sh.Roop Singh as such the above said electricity connection is in the name of Roop Singh. From the date of purchase of above said house, the said electricity connection is being used by the complainant and complainant is making payments of the electricity bills regularly and as such the complainant is consumer of OPs as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2.                          It is further submitted that a bill of Rs.75,686/-  dated 22.11.2017 was issued by the OPs wherein Rs.75,436/- has been shown as sundry charges. It is further submitted that the above said amount of Rs.75,436 shown as sundry charges is illegal, against facts, null & void and the complainant is not bound to make payment of the same.

3.                          It is further submitted that the complainant never committed any theft of the electricity energy nor the meter in question became defective during this period. Prior to the above said bill a bill of about Rs.800/- on by monthly basis used to be issued to the complainant by the OPs and all the bills were deposited by him.

4.                          It is also further submitted that the employees of the OPs deliberately replaced the electricity meter of the complainant whereas the same was working properly. Thereafter a notice was issued to the complainant for his presence at M&T Lab, Hisar where the correctness of the meter was to be checked. So the complainant visited the M&T Lab of the OPs on the date fixed by OPs. However, the meter was not checked in that laboratory and again a notice was sent to the complainant for remaining present as the meter in question was to be checked in M&T Lab, Sirsa. So, the complainant visited the M&T Lab Sirsa on the date fixed by the OPs, but even Sirsa also the meter was not checked by the OPs. It is also further submitted that the complainant never tempered the seals or other points of the meter in question.

5.                          It is further submitted that the bill dated 22.11.2017 wherein an amount of Rs.75,436/- has been added as sundry charges is null & void, against law and facts and the same is liable to be corrected. Therefore the complainant requested the OPs for correctness of the above said  bill, but to no avail. The complainant has further prayed that the OPs may be directed for correcting the electricity bill in dispute. The complainant has also prayed for the award of Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as litigation charges.  Hence the present complaint.

6.                          On being served, the OPs appeared through their counsel and resisted the complaint by filing a joint written statement wherein various preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, cause of action, locus-standi, jurisdiction, estoppel, concealment of true and material facts etc. have been raised.

7.                          In reply on merits, it is submitted that the checking of the electricity meter in question was carried out in the presence of the complainant Sh.Bharat Singh on 29.04.2017 and he produced a bill No.0874 dated 28.02.2017 of payment of the electricity charges. However during checking a huge gap was found between the reading of the meter and a latest reading of bill issued on 28.02.2017. Therefore the meter in question was packed in a card-board box and the same was sent to M&T Lab, Hisar for checking of the accuracy and genuity of the seals. Supply of the electricity charges was restored in the premises of the complainant as per Nigam instructions.

8.                          It is further submitted that thereafter a  notice bearing No.2227 dated 18.08.2017 was issued to the complainant to come present in M&T Lab, Hisar on 21.08.2017 so that the meter can be checked in his presence. However the complainant or any of his representatives did not come present on 21.08.2017 in M&T Lab, Hisar. Thereafter a final notice dated 25.09.2017 was issued to the complainant to come present in M&T Lab, Sirsa on 29.09.2017, but the complainant did not come present at the time of checking of the meter in the laboratory. The checking of the meter was done in M&T Lab, Sirsa and the checking team gave its report  that the reading in the meter was 15914 units and the meter was found intact and reverts were also found intact. Block of the meter was found burnt. After opening the body of the meter, no abnormality was found inside the meter, video-graphy of the inspection was done by the staff of OPs. A checking report dated 29.09.2017 was prepared on the spot and the member of the checking team put their signatures on it.

9.                          It is further submitted that after receiving the joint checking report the account of the meter in question was overhauled through sundry items No.193/103 dated 04.10.2017 and a bill of Rs.75,686/- was issued by adding Rs.75,436/- as sundry charges of 10058 units consumed by the consumer as difference of the units in which payments had already made and the units shown by the meter after inspection. It is further submitted that the complainant is bound to make payment of the above said bill and the OPs are competent to recover the amount of above said units consumed by the complainant. The bill in question issued to the complainant is perfectly in accordance with the rules and instructions of the Nigam and the same is sustainable in the eyes of law. It is further submitted that there is no deficiency on the part of OPs in rendering service to the complainant and as such the present complaint is liable to be  dismissed being devoid of any merits.

10.                        The learned counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of the complainant as Annexure CW1/A and the documents as Annexure A to Annexure G and closed the evidence.  On the other hand, Shri Rajesh Kumar, SDO, Sub Division, Fatehabad tendered in evidence his affidavit as Exhibit RW1/A.  The OPs also tendered in evidence the documents as Annexure R-1 and Annexure R-5 and closed the evidence.

11.                        The learned counsel for the complainant in his arguments reiterated the averments made in the complaint and further contended that the complainant had been making the payments of energy charges sent by the Ops regularly and there was no delay or default on the part of complainant in depositing the electricity bills. It is further contended by the learned counsel that the complainant was never found in committing theft of the energy or tempering the electricity meter. Previously a bill of about Rs.800/- on by monthly basis was used to be issued by the OPs. However, the Ops sent an electricity bill of Rs.75,686/- payable on 22.11.2017 wherein an amount of Rs.75,436/- was added as sundry charges. It is further contended by the learned counsel that the amount of Rs.75,436/- added in the above said bill is against law, against facts, null & void and the same is liable to be set aside as the complainant was never found indulged in committing theft of the energy. It is further contended by the learned counsel that the meter in question was working properly, but the employees of Ops deliberately replaced the said meter with new one. The complainant visited M&T Lab, Hisar as well as in Sirsa but the meter in dispute was not inspected by the team of OPs in his presence. It is further contended by the learned counsel that the above said act on the part of Ops falls within the definition of deficiency as provided in the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The learned counsel further prayed that the bill in dispute be set aside and the Ops may be directed for issuing a correct bill. The learned counsel also further prayed that the complainant is also entitled for a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and  Rs.5,000/- as litigation charges.

12.                        On the other hand the learned counsel for the Ops controverted the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the complainant and reiterated the submissions made in the written statement filed by the Ops. The learned counsel further contended that the sundry charges of Rs.75,436/- added in the bill in dispute are of the energy consumed by the complainant and the Ops are entitled to recover the same from the complainant. There is no deficiency on the part of Ops in rendering service to the complainant and as such the present complaint is liable to be dismissed.

13.                        We have duly considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties and have also perused the entire material placed on record. We are of the considered opinion that the complainant has not been able to prove deficiency on the part of Ops in rendering service to him. From perusal of checking report dated 29.4.2017 (Annexure R1), it is evident that the meter in dispute was checked by the employees of Ops in presence of the complainant. From perusal of Annexure R1, it is also evident that the bill No.874 dated 28.2.2017 issued by the Ops to the complainant was produced before checking team. Since there was a huge gap between the reading of the meter in dispute checked by the Ops and latest reading of the bill issued on 28.2.2017 as such the checking team packed the meter in a cardboard box for checking of the same in M&T Lab at Hisar. From perusal of letter dated 18.8.2017 (Annexure R2), it is also evident that the Ops had intimated to the complainant to remain present at M&T Lab, Hisar on 21.8.2017, so that the meter in dispute can be checked in his presence. Thereafter vide letter dated 25.9.2017 (Annexure R3), the complainant was intimated to remain present at M&T Lab, Sirsa on 29.9.2017, so that the meter can be checked in his presence. However, the complainant did not visit M&T Lab, Sirsa on 29.9.2017. Therefore a joint team of engineers/ experts checked the meter in dispute and prepared a joint checking report dated 29.9.2017 (Annexure R4). A perusal of the above said joint checking report, it is revealed that no abnormality was found after opening the body of the meter and the seals were found intact. However the block of the meter was found burnt. Since there was a huge gap in the meter reading displayed by the meter in dispute and the latest meter reading sent to the complainant as such the account of the complainant was overhauled and a sundry dated 4.10.2017 was prepared. A perusal of sundry report reveals that reading provided by M&T Lab was 10058 units and reading of latest bill issued to the complainant was of 5857 units. Therefore a bill amounting to Rs.75,436/- on account of above said difference of 10058 units was added in the bill dated 22.11.2014.

14.                        In view of the position as discussed above, the OPs have been able to prove that the amount of Rs.75,436/- added in the bill payable on 22.11.2017 is the difference of the actual units consumed by the complainant as shown by the meter and the latest bill issued to the complainant. The bill issued to the complainant is of the electricity energy consumed by him. It is a settled proposition of law that the Nigam is entitled to recover the charges of electricity energy consumed by the consumer. Moreover, from perusal of documents placed on file, it is revealed that the electricity meter was checked by the OPs on 29.04.2017 in presence of the complainant and thereafter notices were issued to the complainant for remaining present at the time of inspection of the meter by the joint checking team of M&T Laboratory at Hisar and Sirsa. Therefore, there is no procedural lapse on the part of OPs in checking the meter in question.

15.                        In view of aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of OPs in rendering service to the complainant. The present complaint is without any merits and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.  Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.                                                   Dated:10.07.2018

                                                                   (Raghbir Singh)                                                                                           President                        (M.K.Khurana)                                             Distt. Consumer Dispute

Member                                        Redressal Forum, Fatehabad.