BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHABAD.

                                                                              Complaint No.:47 of 2018.

                                                                              Date of Instt.: 06.02.2018.

                                                                              Date of Decision: 08.10.2018.

Harish Mehta aged 52 years son of Shri Parma Nand, resident of near Punjab National Bank, Fatehabad.

                                                                                                                                …Complainant.

                                                Versus

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

2.             Sub-Divisional Officer, Operation Sub-Division, City, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Fatehabad.

                                                                                                                                …Opposite Parties.

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

Before:                                Sh.Raghbir Singh, President.

                                              Sh. Jasvinder Singh, Member.

Dr. Rajni Goyat, Member.

Present:                                 Complainant in person along-with

                                                Sh. Rajbir Singh, counsel for the complainant.

Sh. Parveen Kumar 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 a domestic electricity connection bearing account no. XX1D0512 has been installed by the OPs in the name of Ishwar Dass at his residence near Punjab National Bank, Fatehabad.  The abovesaid electricity connection is being used by the complainant and there is nothing due against him in respect of the above mentioned electricity connection as the complainant has made payment of all the electricity bills upto date.

2.                                             It is further submitted that for the period from 8.9.2017 to 18.11.2017 the OPs issued a bill for a sum of Rs. 15,240/- and the units consumed were shown as 2000 units in the abovesaid bill.  Therefore, the complainant moved an application before opposite parties for issuing the bill of the abovesaid period on the basis of actual consumption. The said application was received by the OPs on 14.12.2017 and the meter of the complainant was checked by the officials of the OPs on the same date and a consumption of total 43179 units was shown by the meter.  The meter of the complainant was not found working on 14.12.2017 and was declared as dead stop.  However, the complainant made a payment of Rs. 5,000/- against the said bill on 18.12.2017 and the abovesaid amount was to be adjusted in future bills of the complainant.  Thereafter, the meter of the complainant was replaced with a new one.

3.                                             It is further submitted that thereafter a bill payable on 5.2.2018 for a sum of Rs. 15,148/- and that too after making adjustment of amount of Rs. 5,000/- deposited by the complainant on 18.12.2017, was issued to the complainant.  In the said bill charges of 354 units for the period from 15.12.2017 to 29.12.2017 i.e. for a period of 14 days and charges of 48 units for the period from 29.12.2017 to 10.1.2018 for a period of 12 days i.e. after installation of the new meter were also included.  In the said bill a sum of Rs. 11,664/- was shown as outstanding whereas there was nothing due against the complainant.  After receipt of the abovesaid bill the complainant moved an application dated 29.1.2018 before the OPs for correction of the abovesaid bill.  However, the complainant was not provided any details and he was informed that the account of the complainant shall be overhauled and after overhauling the account the complainant will be required for making a payment of Rs. 6394/- to the OPs.  However, the complainant was not apprised of the detail of formula applied by the OPs for overhauling the account of the complainant and the complainant was also not assigned the reason for overhauling the account.

4.                                             It is further submitted that the account of the complainant was not overhauled correctly and the complainant is thus entitled to get excess amount recovered by the OPs while wrongly overhauling the account.  It is further submitted that the OPs have recovered from the complainant a sum of Rs. 11,394/- for the period from 9.9.2017 to 29.12.2017 i.e. 110 days.  It is also submitted that most of the period from 9.9.2017 to 29.12.2017 was of winter season and the consumption of electricity energy is 1/4^th  of the summer season.  It is further submitted that the complainant is entitled to get excess amount paid by him in the future bills by making a necessary correction in the impugned bill payable on 5.2.2018 for a sum of Rs. 15,198/- against which a sum of Rs. 6,394/- has been recovered by the OPs.  The complainant has further prayed that the present complaint may kindly be allowed and the OPs may be directed to make necessary correction in the impugned bill payable on 5.2.2018 as per the previous electricity consumed by the complainant as detailed in para no. 6 of the complaint.  The complainant has also further prayed for awarding compensation to be determined by this Forum for mental agony undergone by him.  Hence, the present complaint.

5.                                             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, estoppel and concealment of true and correct facts etc. have been raised.

6.                                             In reply on merits, it has been submitted that the electricity bill amounting to Rs. 4531/- payable on 29.9.2017 of the consumed electricity units of 776 was issued by the OPs and the same was deposited by the user.  Thereafter, an electricity bill of Rs. 15,240/- payable on 8.12.2017 was issued to the user on average basis.  However, the same was not deposited by the user and an application was moved by him in the office of the OPs for issuing the electricity bill on actual consumption basis for the period from 8.9.2017 to 18.11.2017.  On the application of the complainant, the OPs visited the premises of the complainant and noted that the electricity reading in the meter in question was 43179.  Since the electricity meter was dead stop as the same was charged vide MCO no. 64 dated 15.12.2017.  The new meter was installed with reading of 0 units and the complainant deposited an amount of Rs. 5000/- as part payment of the electricity bill of Rs. 15,240/-.  Thereafter, an electricity bill payable on 5.1.2018 amounting to Rs. 11,665/- issued to the complainant wherein the reading of the meter was recorded as 42492 and new reading was recorded as 43179 units and 687 units were recorded as consumed and after making provisional adjustment a bill of Rs. 11,665/- was issued to the complainant and the same was not deposited by the user.  It is further submitted that the electricity consumed units for the period from 15.12.2017 to 29.12.2017 were considered as 354 units in view of the previous electricity consumed by the complainant and 48 units for the period from 29.12.2017 to 10.1.2018.  Thereafter, an electricity bill was prepared after adding the amount of previous electricity bill of Rs. 11,665/- and a bill amounting to Rs. 15,198/- payable on 5.2.2018 was issued to the complainant.  Thereafter, the account of the complainant was overhauled vide sundry item dated 2.2.2018 and after making adjustment of electricity bills issued on average basis an amount of Rs. 8807/- was adjusted and the remaining bill was deposited by the connection holder by admitting the same to be correct.  Therefore, there is no deficiency on the part of OPs in issuing the impugned bill to the connection holder.  The present complaint is without any merits and as such the same is liable to be dismissed.

7.                                             The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit as Exhibit CW1/A, wherein the averments made in the complaint have been affirmed.  The complainant also tendered in evidence documents as Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-9 and closed the evidence.  On the other hand, Shri Dheeraj Kumar SDO DHBVN City Sub Division, City Fatehabad tendered his affidavit as Annexure RW1/A in support of the case of OPs.  The OPs also tendered in evidence the documents as Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-7 and closed the OPs evidence.

8.                                             We have duly considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire material placed on record. It is the case of the complainant that the bill amounting to Rs. 15,240/- issued by the Ops for the period from 8.9.2017 to 18.11.2017 payable on 8.12.2017 of 2000 units sent on average basis is without any details and the same is not of actual consumption of energy by the complainant.  Similarly, it is further the case of the complainant that the bill payable on 5.2.2018 for a sum of Rs. 15,198/- is also without any details and the same has also been issued to the complainant not on the basis of actual consumption and as such the impugned bill requires correction.  It is further the case of the complainant that excess amount which has already been recovered by the Ops from the complainant may be ordered to be adjusted in the future bills of the complainant.  On the other hand, it is the case of the Ops that the account of the electricity connection in qeustion was overhauled by the Ops vide sundry item no. 198/35 dated 2.2.2019 and an amount of Rs. 8807/- has been adjusted and the remaining amount has already been deposited by the connection holder by admitting the same as correct.  It is further the case of the Ops that the action of the Ops in the present case is perfectly in accordance with the guidelines and instructions of the Nigam and there is no deficiency on the part of Ops  in rendering service to the complainant in the present case. 

9.                                             In view of the position as discussion above, the prime question involved in the present case for decision by this Forum is as to whether there is any deficiency on the part of Ops in issuing the electricity bill of 2000 units payable on 8.12.2017 (Annexure R-2) and the bill payable on 5.2.2018 (Annexure R-7) for a sum of Rs. 15,198/-.  The OPs in its written statement has submitted that the bill payable on 8.12.2017 has been issued to the user on the average basis and the same is not of actual consumption.  The previous consumption pattern of the meter in question is reproduced as under:-

10.                                          A perusal of the abovesaid pattern reveals that during the period from November 2016 to September 2017 the consumption of the meter on bimonthly basis is between 293 to 776 units.  Therefore, the bill of consumption of 2000 units issued to the user in the bill payable on 8.12.2017 for a period of 70 days is certainly very excessive and disproportionate to the previous consumption pattern.  In its reply, the Ops have neither given any details or explanation of a huge amount of bill sent to the complainant on average basis.  It is also pertinent to mention here that from perusal of the bill Annexure R-2, it is revealed that on 18.11.2017 the total consumption has been shown as 44492 units whereas as per the reading on 15.12.2017 i.e. after 18.11.2017 the total consumption has been shown as 43179 units i.e. less than 44492 units as mentioned in the electricity bill Annexure R-2.  In the bill payable on 5.2.2018 (Annexure R-7), the OPs have sent a bill of 354 units on average basis for the period from 15.12.2017 to 29.12.2017 i.e. of 14 days whereas from Annexure R-7, it is further revealed that a bill for the period from 29.12.2017 to 10.1.2018 i.e. of 12 days is only 48 units on the basis of actual consumption.  Therefore, a bill of 354 units for the period of only 14 days is certainly very excessive and disproportionate to the actual consumption of the consumer.  In view of the position as explained above, we are of the considered opinion that there is deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs in issuing the electricity bills Annexure R-2 and Annexure R-7  to the user. Since the complainant is user of the electricity meter in question and he is making payment of the electricity bills to the OPs, as such we are of the considered opinion that the complainant falls within the definition of consumer of the OPs as provided in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  However, the abovesaid bills have already overhauled by the OPs vide sundry item dated 2.2.2009 and an amount of Rs. 8,807/- has been adjusted and the remaining amount has already been deposited by the connection holder.

11.                                          The OPs are accordingly directed for making a payment of Rs. 7,000/- to the complainant as compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment.  The OPs are further directed for making a payment of Rs. 3100/- as litigation charges.  The present complaint is accordingly disposed of.  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:08.10.2018

           (Raghbir Singh)                                                                                                                                             President                                                 (Jasvinder Singh)             (Rajni Goyat)                                                                      Distt. Consumer Dispute

     Redressal Forum, Fatehabad.                             Member                           Member