BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 240 of 2018
Date of Institution : 26.09.2018
Date of Decision : 23.04.2019.
Jagdish Chander Rohaj son of Shri Ranjit ram resident of village Sakta Khera Tehsil Dabwali District Sirsa. ……Complainant.
Versus
- Superintending Engineer, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited Aasakhera Tehsil Dabwali District Sirsa.
- Sh.Radhey Shyam, Sub Divisional Officer, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited Aasakhera Tehsil Dabwali District Sirsa.
- Sh.Jaswant Singh Lineman, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited Aasakhera, Tehsil Dabwali District Sirsa.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI R.L. AHUJA……………….. PRESIDENT
SHRI ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL ……MEMBER.
MRS. SUKHDEEP KAUR……………..MEMBER.
Present: Complainant in person.
Sh. K.K.Relhan, Advocate for opposite party No.1. OPs No. 2 & 3 exparte.
ORDER
In brief, the case of the complainant is that, he had obtained an electric connection bearing No.A/c No.SC-08/0450/DS, Old A/c No.SK/0174, as per his requirements and was paying the electricity bills regularly. On 02.07.2015, the complainant requested the Ops for disconnection of electricity connection; therefore, the Op No.1 had disconnected the electricity connection of the house of the complainant and also got deposited Rs.2265/- vide separate receipt, as electricity charges. On 03.07.2015, the OP No.3 had removed the electricity meter in the presence of OP No.2 and took the same with him and thereafter, the Ops have not issued any bill to the complainant regarding the said connection. It has been further averred that on 11.09.2016, the Ops had sent a bill for Rs.6759/- for 00 units despite the fact that the electricity connection has already been disconnected and he was not using the electricity. The complainant sought information regarding this from the Ops under RTI Act besides filing an appeal before the higher authorities regarding not providing of complete information and in the appeal the Executive Engineer, Dabwali, on 28.12.2016 has verbally ordered for settling the matter. Thereafter, the Ops have never issued any bill to the complainant. In the month of April, 2018, the complainant requested the Ops for restoring the electricity connection and also deposited the requisite file in the office of Op No.1 but the officials of the Ops returned the file by saying that for new electricity connection, the complainant will have to deposit the outstanding electricity charges. The complainant requested the Ops number of times for providing the details of outstanding amount but the Ops neither provided the detail of the outstanding dues nor released the electricity connection. Due to the act and conduct of the Ops, the complainant has suffered harassment, mental agony besides economic loss, which tentamounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice only Op No.1 appeared and filed its reply wherein it has been submitted that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable; that the complainant has got no locus standi to file the present complaint; that the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops. It has been further submitted that as per record of the Nigam, the electricity connection of the complainant was disconnected on his request vide PDCO No.09/313 dated 02.07.2015 but when the officials of the Nigam visited the premises of the complainant for disconnecting the electricity connection, the house of the complainant was found locked, so only wire was cut as the meter was installed inside the house of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant was not ready for the removal of the meter. The bill issued to the complainant is legal and genuine and has been issued on the basis of minimum charges/fixed charges because the electricity connection of the complainant could not be disconnected permanently. The complainant is legally bound to pay the defaulting amount of Rs.8951/- upto 28.03.2017. Since, the complainant himself was not ready for the removal of the electricity meter; therefore, question of any deficiency in service on the part of Ops does not arise at all. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3. During the proceeding of the complaint, the Ops No.2 & 3 did not appear before this Fourm, therefore, they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 20.12.2018.
4. Thereafter, the parties have led their respective evidence.
5. We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for Op No.1 and have gone through the case file very carefully.
6. The complainant in order to prove his case has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A wherein he has reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint and in support of his pleas he has placed on record documents such as application for disconnecting the electricity connection Ex.C1, bill receipt Ex.C2, application under RTI, Act Ex.C3, notice under Section 19 (1) of RTI Act, 2005 Ex. C4, complaint against Op No.3 Ex.C5, another application Ex.C6. On the other hand, the Op No.1 has furnished the affidavits of Sh. Satish Kumar, SDO Ex.R1 and affidavit of Sh.Sukhminder Singh, ALM Ex.R2, wherein they have deposed all the facts mentioned in the reply and the Op No.1 has also produced documents such as account detail of the electricity connection of complainant Ex.R3, PDCO letter Ex.R4.
7. It is undisputed facts between the parties that the connection of the complainant was disconnected by the Ops at the request of the complainant on 02.07.2015 as the same was not required by him and thereafter, the complainant did not take any supply of the electricity from the Ops. It is also a proved fact on record that PDCO was issued by the Ops after disconnecting the electricity supply of the complainant.
8. The bone of contention between the parties is qua the bill issued for minimum charges of electricity. As per the contention of the Ops, the meter was not removed from the house of the complainant as the house of the complainant was locked and they made request to the complainant on telephone and verbally, but however, he did not cooperate, as a result of which the meter remained installed in the house of the complainant, therefore, the PDCO was actually effected in the year 2017 and the Ops are entitled to charge the minimum charges of electricity @ 80 units per month for the intervening period i.e. from the date of disconnection till the date of PDCO in the year 2017.
9. On the other hand, there is specific plea of the complainant that since at his request, the connection was disconnected and the meter was removed by the officials of the Ops on the same day, as a result of which, he did not take any supply from the Ops thereafter, and the bill issued by the Ops is illegal and not binding on the rights of the complainant. There are further allegations in the complaint that the Ops had harassed and tortured the complainant time and again without any reason and rhyme and he deserves for the compensation and cost of litigation.
10. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the Op No.1 has stated at bar that no electricity was consumed by the complainant after the disconnection, but however, till the date of removal of the meter, the Ops are entitled to charge the minimum charges. The perusal of the evidence of the Ops reveals that the Ops have not placed on record any such document from which it could be presumed that the complainant did not allow the officials of the Ops to remove the meter from the premises of the complainant. It is proved fact on record that PDCO was effected by the officials of the Ops in the presence of complainant by disconnecting the electricity supply to the house of the complainant, then how it is possible that the meter was not removed. So, it appears from the evidence of the parties that the Ops are not entitled to raise any demand for the minimum charges when the consumption of electricity was not made by the complainant from the date of disconnection. The PDCO was only a legal formality on the part of the Ops which they had to perform at their own. 11. Secondly, the complainant had made prayer for restoring/releasing of the electricity connection. It has been specifically mentioned by the complainant that while the moment he applied for the restoration of the electricity connection, but Ops are not releasing the connection till the alleged arrears of electricity bills are not deposited by the complainant. During the course of arguments, the SDO concerned, who is present in the court has also stated at bar that they never refused to release the connection of the complainant, but however, the complainant did not deposit the arrears of the minimum charges of electricity for the period i.e. from the date of disconnection till the date of PDCO in the year 2017. So, it is apparently clear from the record that the Ops cannot refuse to release the connection to the complainant and moreover, the refund of the security which he had already deposited with the Ops has not been made to the complainant. The Ops are only entitled to charge the processing charges of the restoration of the connection as well as the meter charges.
12. In view of the above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the Ops not to claim any amount on account of minimum charges since the date of disconnection of the supply of the electricity till today. The Ops are further directed to restore/release the electricity connection of the complainant at his own request on his depositing of cost of meter as well as the processing charges within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The Ops are further directed to pay Rs.3,000/- to the complainant as composite compensation for harassment and litigation expenses. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated: 23.04.2019 District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member Member
DCDRF, Sirsa DCDRF, Sirsa
