Haryana

Charkhi Dadri

cc/09/2019

Dariya Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

DHBVN - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Dharamvir Sheoran

16 Jul 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHARKHI DADRI.

                              

                                                                   Complaint No.: 9 of 2019.

                                                                   Date of Institution: 20.08.2019.

                                                                   Date of Decision: 16.07.2024

 

Dariya Singh  son of Bhinka Ram, Jogi by Caste, resident of  village Mauri, Tehsil & District Charkhi Dadri. Mobile No.9991724142

 

                                                                             ….Complainant.

 

                                      Versus.

1. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Vidhyut Nagar, Hisar through its Managing Director.
2. XEN “OP” Division City DHBVN, Charkhi Dadri.
3. S.D.O. “OP” Division City DHBVN, Charkhi Dadri.

…...OPs.

 

                   COMPLAINT UNDER  THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.

 

Sitting: -     Hon’ble Shri Manjit Singh Naryal, President,

                   Hon’ble Shri Dharam Pal Rauhilla, Member,

 

Present:       Shri Dharamvir Sheoran, Adv. for the complainant.  

Shri Kulwant Phogat, Advocate for OPs.

 

 

O R D E R

                   The facts of the complainant in brief, are that he is having an electricity connection bearing No.MM1D-0429-A and has been making payment of electricity charges regularly, hence he is consumer qua respondents. The complainant had made a written request to the OP no. 3 to check the faulty meter of the complainant and deposited a prescribed fee Rs. 200/-. Prior to this, the complainant deposited the bill regularly. The complainant alleged that the OPs have issued a bill No.01692 dated 8.06.2019 vide which a sum of Rs.47,071/- (including the reading of old meter & new Meter aggregating to 6218 units for the period from 20.03.2019 to 20.05.2019) was required to be deposited. The complainant further alleged that no previous bill was due towards his account. It is averred that the complainant requested many times further to the OPs for correction of the alleged bill, but the OPs did not pay any heed on the request of complainant. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs and as such, he had to file the present complaint. The complaint of the complainant was admitted by this Commission and OPs were directed not to disconnect electricity connection if the complainant deposits 25% of the disputed bill amount vide order dated 20.08.2019.

2. OPs on appearance had filed written statement alleging therein that when the complainant gave an application for checking the meter then the MCO No.9/42 dt.11.04.2019 was done and the actual reading of the old meter was found 9413 units while the complainant has only paid the bills for 3344 units. It hasbeen further submitted that the bill of Rs.47,071/- was issuedafter deducting the 3344 units from actual readings of old meter which was consumed by the complainant in the new meter. So, the amount of Rs.47,071/- charged from the complainant is correct and legal and he is bound to deposit the same with the Nigam. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.

3.                 Complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C20 and closed his evidence on dated 12.01.2023.

4.                Ld. Counsel for the OPs has tendered affidavit Ex.RW-1/A an documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 and closed the evidence on dated 24.08.2023.

5.                 We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

6.                After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and having gone through the material available on record, we are of the considered view that the complaint of the complainant deserve acceptance as there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  It is admitted fact that electricity connection bearing No. MM1D-0429-A stands in the name of complainant. Now question arises whether the OPs are entitled to recover the amount of Rs.47,071/-  for 6218 units  (i.e. 150 units as per new meter and 6068 units as per old meter) for the period from 20.03.2019 to 20.05.2019 from the complainant or not?  The sought answer is “No” because the OPs have taken the stand in the written statement that the meter of the complainant was found defective which was changed vide MCO No.9/42 dated 11.04.2019. however, readings of the old meter were not recorded in the presence of the complainant as  there is no evidence in whose presence the old meter was replaced and readings were recorded. It was the duty of the OPs to produce report to prove their version but they have miserably failed to do so with the reason best known to them. Ostensibly, the presumption may be drawn against the OPs and in favour of complainant. Nevertheless, it was accepted by the OPs that the old meter of complainant had become defective. That is why the same was replaced by the OPs on accepting fee for the same. In this situation, instead of raising impugned bill, the OPs should have charged the bill based on average readings  as per new meter installed by the OPs. We have perused the readings recorded in 12 bills placed on record. The units of electricity consumed by the complainant as per these 12 bills from August 2019 to June 2021 raised after installation of new meter is as under:-

Sr. No.                  Bill Month                      Units Consumed

1.                    August 2019                  284
2.                    October 2019                 179
3.                    December 2019              200
4.                    February 2020               62
5.                    April 2020                      65
6.                    June 2020                     66
7.                    August 2020                  236
8.                    October 2020                 286   
9.                    December 2020              305
10.           February 2021               116
11.           April 2021                      146
12.           June 2021                     475
13.  

Average per bill201.66 rounded to 202 units per billing cycle.

As per consumed units shown on the bills, the average units for 2 years, 12 billing cycle August 2019 to June 2021 arrives at 202 units as per new meter.

Accordingly, OPs should have raised bill for more than 202 units instead of bill for 6218 units raised vide impugned bill dated 08.06.2019 for the period from 20.03.2019 to 20.05.2019. In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, the complaint of the complainant is allowed and the impugned bill issued by the OPs amounting to Rs.47,071/- is hereby  set aside. Accordingly, the OPs are directed as under:-

1. To recover bill only for 202 units from the complainant against the impugned bill for 6218 units for Rs.47,071/- and adjust the amount already paid by the complainant against his future bills. The surcharge if imposed because of non-payment of impugned bill amount, be waived off entirely.
2. To pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, physical harassment.
3. To pay Rs. 2,200/- as litigation charges.

                   The compliance of the order shall be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, failing which further interest @12% will be payable for the delayed payment. Certified copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.