BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 83 of 2019 Date of Institution : 13.02.2019
Date of Decision : 04.09.2019.
Bihari Lal Narula aged about 56 years son of Shri Hans Raj, resident of Gali No.3, Guru Nanak Nagari, Near Khasa High School, Sirsa, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam through its Managing Director at Hisar. 2. Sub Divisional Officer, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, City Sub Division, Sirsa, (OP) Circle Sirsa.
..…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI R.L. AHUJA…………….. PRESIDENT
SHRI ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL ……MEMBER.
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR………….. MEMBER
Present: Sh. JBL Garg, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Vijay Sharma, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
In brief, the case of complainant is that complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties in respect of domestic electricity connection bearing account number 3013520309 with sanctioned load of 4.43 KW. That earlier the address of the complainant as mentioned in the records of the ops was wrong for which the complainant raised complaints with the ops a number of times. That thereafter, the ops started issuing the electricity consumption bills to the complainant of extremely high consumption of units. The complainant checked his electricity meter and found that the meter is displaying very high consumption that actually used. It is further averred that complainant raised complaint with the ops a number of times in this regard but they did not pay any heed to the same. That complainant made a written complaint no.4800/4801 dated 29.9.2018 to the ops in this regard at its office at Barnala Road, Sirsa claiming to install a cheque meter and for correction of the consumption bills but no action was taken by the ops. The complainant was assured by the ops for installment of check meter and for correction of the bills on the basis of average consumption but neither any check meter has been installed nor any rectified bills were issued rather a bill amounting to Rs.43398.52 was raised on 23.11.2018 whereas on 12.12.2018 another bill amounting to Rs.39698.98 has been again raised by the ops. Surprisingly again on 18.1.2019, a bill amounting to Rs.48312.22 was raised by the ops. The complainant contacted the ops for these ills and again asked them to install a check meter and to rectify and overhaul the consumption bills of the higher values but the ops did not pay any heed to the request of complainant. It is further averred that in the digital electricity meter installed in the premises of the complainant, a complete record of maximum load consumed alongwith average of the load consumed is digitally recorded in the meter itself and perusal of same also clears the position that the display of meter reading is much more higher than the average consumption as well as maximum load consumed by the complainant at his premises. That the complainant contacted the ops time and again but the ops a few days ago threatened the complainant either to pay electricity bill as generated by them or that the electricity supply shall be disconnected. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that as a matter of fact, the address of the complainant/ consumer was correct in the record of the answering ops, but binder of the billing in RAPDRP Billing software was inadvertently uploaded to other binder than the actual binder of the billing of the electric connection of the complainant, which was not intentional or negligent, but it was only due to some technical error and on the complaint made by the complainant, it has already been corrected and a fresh bill has been issued to the complainant amounting to Rs.43236/- and same has also been delivered to the complainant on 28.3.2019. It is further submitted that bills were issued as per the actual consumed units. Moreover, due to aforesaid technical error, the bills for the several months could not be delivered to the complainant and after making such corrections of the binder in billing software, the surcharge to the extent of Rs.17013.29/- and Rs.515/- (Total Rs.17519.29) have been deducted from the total amount of bill vide revised bill dated 15.3.2019, which was delivered to the complainant on 28.3.2019 and an amount of Rs.43,236/- is still outstanding towards the complainant, which is actual consumption charges. Remaining contents of the complaint are denied and prayer for dismissal of the complaint made.
3. The parties then led their respective evidence.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
5. The complainant in order to prove his complaint has furnished his affidavit Ex.C1 in which he has deposed and reiterated all the averments made in the complaint. The complainant has also furnished copy of letter dated 27.3.2019 Ex.C2, copy of bill Ex.C3, copy of receipt Ex.C4, copy of application Ex.C5, copy of receipt Ex.C6, copy of memo no.1433 Ex.C7, copy of bill Ex.C8, copy of letter dated 26.6.2018 Ex.C9, copy of memo dated 11.6.2018 Ex.C10, copy of receipt Ex.C11, copy of service connection order Ex.C12, copy of photo Ex.C13, copy of application form for electricity connection Ex.C14, copy of demand notice Ex.C15, copy of memo no.6399 dated 30.4.2018 Ex.C17, copy of application Ex.C18, copy of application dated 15.4.2019 Ex.C19 and bills and receipts Ex.C20 to Ex.C25.
6. On the other hand, ops have furnished affidavit of Sh. Ravinder Singh SDO as Ex.R1 in which he has deposed and reiterated all the averments made in the written statement. The ops have also tendered copy of memo dated 27.3.2019 Ex.R2 and copy of bill Ex.R3.
7. It is undisputed fact between the parties that complainant is holding a domestic electric connection in his house and consuming the electricity and paying bills as per bills issued by ops. The complainant made a written complaint on 29.9.2018 to the ops claiming to install a cheque meter and for correction of the bills, but however, the complainant was getting bills from time to time which forced the complainant to file the present complaint. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for ops has contended that ops have already waived of the surcharge amount of Rs./17519.29 and have also issued fresh bill to the tune of Rs.43,236/-. On the other hand, learned counsel for complainant has contended that still the demand raised by ops is illegal and arbitrary as there is no such consumption in the house of complainant and ops are in the habit of issuing the excessive bills from time to time causing harassment to the complainant. Both the parties during the course of arguments have agreed to get the account overhauled in the presence of complainant and it will be in the fitness of things if such a direction is issued to the ops.
8. In view of above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to overhaul the account of complainant in his presence after serving a seven days prior notice to the complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The ops are further directed to raise fresh demand if any by serving a further 15 days prior notice to pay the same. In case, if any amount is found to be excessively charged, same will be refunded to the complainant/ adjusted in the account of complainant. If the complainant wants to get his meter replaced, the ops shall replace the same after charging necessary expenses as per rules. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:04.09.2019. Member Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
