BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 411 of 2019
Date of Institution : 02.08.2019
Date of Decision : 07.01.2020.
Dinesh Mantri son of Sh. Net Ram, resident of Gali No.1, Old Court Colony, Near Railway Crossing, Sirsa-125055.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. through Managing Director, Hisar.
2. S.D.O. City, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Sirsa.
..…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI R.L. AHUJA…………….. PRESIDENT
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR………….. MEMBER
SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA……….MEMBER
Present: Complainant in person.
Sh. S.K. Garg, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
In brief, the case of complainant is that he alongwith his family is consumer of opposite parties and is regularly paying the bills of electricity which are issued vide account No. 4973970000 and same is in the name of Gurmukh Singh. That ops are issuing the bills without reading for the last 10-12 months and every time the bills are being corrected on written complaints of complainant but despite that ops are still issuing the bills without reading and are unnecessarily harassing the complainant due to which the complainant is suffering loss of his work and is also suffering financial loss besides mental and physical harassment and same shows deficiency in service on the part of ops towards a consumer. It is further averred that ops are in habit of sending the bills without reading and when the complainant paid the bill through online, an amount of Rs.100/- was extra shown which was also paid by him and said bill is for extra amount than the paper bill and he has to lodge the complaint in this regard but ops are issuing the bills of extra amount. That from 17.11.2018 to 7.5.2019 and from 7.5.2019 to 28.5.2019, bill amount of Rs.968/- has been shown and for depositing the bill, duplicate bill was got generated on 22.7.2019 and then paper bill was delivered to the neighbourer on 20.7.2019 in which bill amount of Rs.1537/- was shown and when on 29.7.2019 duplicate bill was obtained, an amount of Rs.2137/- was being shown which is for more excess amount. It is further averred that thereafter it was told that meter is defective which was replaced on 24.5.2019 and thereafter also the bill was issued without reading. That in this way, the ops are indulged in issuing the excessive bills without reading and showing the different amounts in the bills and are harassing the complainant and in the bill dated 12.2.2019, the bill of Rs.939/- was shown, then on 28.3.2019 bill amount of Rs.813/- was shown and in the bill dated 28.5.2019, an amount of Rs.1033/- was shown but they received Rs.1133/- and this all shows deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections regarding suppression of material facts, complaint is false and frivolous and that complainant has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present complaint as he is not consumer of Nigam; that complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct to file the present complaint and that complaint is not maintainable and sustainable in the eyes of law in this Forum and hence it cannot proceed further. On merits, it is submitted that as per Nigam record connection A/C No. 4973970000 is in the name of Gurmukh Singh with sanctioned load of 3.700 KW. The complainant neither explained how he is consumer nor he explained succession of Gurmukh Singh, so he is not consumer. It is further submitted that remaining contents are incorrect as the consumer is defaulter of Nigam. He is habitual of late payment and after January, 2019, he has paid nothing to Nigam, while he is enjoying the facility of electricity continuously. It is further submitted that contents of para no.2 of the complaint are correct to the extent of issuance of bills from January, 2019 as the electric meter of this connection found faulty, so actual reading was not recorded and bills issued on average basis but due subsidies were given to connection, later on 29.4.2019 meter of this connection was changed vide MCO no.6735480436 on his application at reading 16323 and as per found reading bills issued accordingly, as per 7/19 statement bill of this connection is pending 2137/- and further surcharge on this bill and next bill also can be due up to date of next billing circle. It is further submitted that all the bills issued as per reading/ consumption of connection after replacement of meter but complainant is habitual of default. He was himself on fault of non payment as bill of 5/2019 was issued for Rs.968, similarly for the period 7/2019 for Rs.2137/- but he never paid anything and when next bill was raised he made hue and cry. There is no deficiency in service on the part of Nigam, perhaps it is complainant who wants to be over smart. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
3. The parties then led their respective evidence.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. The complainant in order to prove his complaint has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and has also furnished copy of order Ex.C1, copy of information under RTI Act Ex.C2 and copies of bills Ex.C3 to Ex.C8 and detail of account Ex.C9. On the other hand, learned counsel for ops suffered a statement that written statement filed on behalf of ops be read as evidence.
6. As per contention of complainant, the ops are issuing the bills of excess amounts and on raising objection, the bill is rectified and thereafter complainant has to deposit the same with surcharge, as a result of which complainant has already suffered a lot. On the other hand, there is specific contention of ops that no excess amount has ever been claimed by ops qua consumption charges of complainant, but however, complainant is in habit of making false complaints against ops time and again. The complainant has relied upon the order of First Appellate Authority -cum- Superintending Engineer ‘OP’ Circle, DHBVN, Sirsa Ex.C1 by which the account of complainant was ordered to be overhauled for a period of one year on the basis of consumption of the corresponding preceding year in the year 2012 but now complainant is claiming that excess bill is being issued by ops from the last more than one year. It will be in the fitness of things, if present complaint is partly allowed and ops are directed to overhaul the account of complainant in his presence.
7. In view of our 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 ten days prior notice to the complainant and thereafter to settle and claim the amount, if any found due against him and to provide 15 days period for depositing of the amount, if any claimed from the complainant. We further direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. 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. Member Member President,
Dated: 07.01.2020. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
