Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/14/2018

Jarnail Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

DHBVN - Opp.Party(s)

Virender Jhakar

08 Jun 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHABAD.

 

                                                           Complaint No.:14 of 2018.

                                                           Date of Instt.: 08.01.2018.

                                                           Date of Decision: 08.06.2018.

 

Jarnail Singh son of Sh.Labh Singh, caste Jatt Sikh, resident of village Kamana, Tehsil Ratia, District Fatehabad.

 

                                                                             …Complainant.

                             Versus

 

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

 

2.       Sub-Divisional Officer, Operation Sub Division, City Sub Division, Ratia, Tehsil Ratia, District Fatehabad.

 

 

                                                                             …Opposite Parties.

 

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

 

Before:                Sh.Raghbir Singh, President.

                            Sh. M.K. Khurana, Member.

 

         

Present:                Sh.Virender Jakhar, counsel for the complainant.

Sh.Parveen K.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 he is using the electricity meter bearing No.RAID-1347-A installed at the residence of the complainant in village Kamana, Tehsil Ratia, District Fatehabad. It is further submitted that the complainant is using the abovesaid connection of the OPs which has its office at Ratia, Distt. Fatehabad and as such this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint.

2.                          The complainant is using electricity connection and has been making payment of all the electricity bills regularly and there is nothing due against the complainant in respect of the abovesaid electricity connection.  Therefore, the complainant is consumer of the OPs as defined in Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

3.                          It is further submitted that the last month bill for the period from 19.09.2017 to 19.11.2017 of 5358 units is wrong and the complainant is not liable to pay the same. The complainant made a compliant to OPs to correct the electricity bill of above mentioned units as per actual consumption of the electricity but the official of the OPs did not pay any attention towards the request of the complainant. The complainant has repeatedly requested to the OPs to correct the impugned bill but all in vain.   The abovesaid act on the part of OPs amounts to deficiency and unfair trade practice.  The complainant has further prayed that the complaint of the complainant may kindly be accepted and the OPs may kindly be directed to correct the electricity bill dated 19.11.2017 and grant compensation of Rs.10,000/-.  Hence the present complaint.

4.                          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, complainant has not come to this court with clean hands and estoppel etc. have been raised.

5.                          In reply on merits, it is submitted that in the month of November 2017, electricity meter reading of the complainant’s meter was recorded as 5358 units (new reading 7673 - old reading 2315) and a bill of Rs.40,788/- in the month of December, 2017 was issued to the complainant. It is further submitted that the above said bill was in accordance with the actual consumption and in accordance with the rules of the Nigam and the complainant is liable to pay the bill of units consumed by him. It is further submitted that in view of these facts the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

It is further prayed that the present complaint is without any merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.

6.                          Learned counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of the complainant as Annexure CW1/A and the documents as Annexure C-1 and Annexure C-2 and closed the evidence.  On the other hand, Shri Ashok Pannu SDO Operation, Ratia tendered in evidence his affidavit as Exhibit RW1/A.  The OPs also tendered in evidence the documents as Annexure R-1 and Annexure R-2.

7.                          The learned counsel for the complainant in his arguments reiterated the averments made in the complaint and further contended that the impugned bill issued on 5.12.2017 and payable on 22.12.2017 for an amount of Rs. 40,868/- is totally wrong against law and against facts and as such the complainant is not liable for making the payment of the same.  It is also further contended that prior to the impugned bill the average electricity consumption of the complainant was between 150 units to 200 units whereas in the impugned bill 5358 units have been shown as consumed by the complainant.  The impugned bill is many times more than the bills issued to the complainant previously.  The learned counsel further prayed that that the impugned bill may be set aside and the OPs may be directed for issuing a correct bill to the complainant as per his consumption.  It is also further prayed that the OPs may be directed for making a payment of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation and litigation charges.

8.                          On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs vehemently rebutted the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the complainant and further contended that the impugned bill issued to the complainant is of actual energy consumed by the complainant during this period.  The impugned bill has been issued to the complainant in accordance with rules and instructions of the Nigam and as such the present complaint is without any merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.

9.                          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 he is paying regularly the electricity bills issued to him by the OPs and he never made any default in making the payments of the energy charges.  The meter reader used to check the reading of the meter and on that basis the OPs were sending the bill to the complainant and the same was paid regularly and prior to the impugned bill the average electricity consumption of the complainant was between 150 units to 200 units.  However, the amount of electricity charges received by the complainant vide the impugned bill was many times more than the actual electricity consumed by the complainant.

10.                        After hearing the rival contention of both the parties and examining the documents placed on record, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has not been able to prove any deficiency on the part of OPs in issuing the impugned bill Annexure C-1.  From perusal of the impugned electricity bill, it is evident that the electricity meter in dispute of the complainant was OK and the units consumed by the complainant has been recorded on the basis of actual meter reading for the period from 19.9.2017  to 19.11.2017.  In view of above, it is evident that the electricity bill of 5358 units issued to the complainant was of actual consumption by the complainant during this period and the same has been issued on the basis of actual meter reading as shown by the electricity meter.  In case the complainant is aggrieved with the correctness of the electricity meter in that eventuality he should have moved an application with the OPs for checking the correctness of the meter from the M & T Laboratory.  However, no such application has been moved by the complainant with the OPs for checking of the electricity meter in dispute.  Otherwise also it is not the case of the complainant that the electricity meter in question is not working properly.  Since the electricity bill issued to the complainant is perfectly as per the meter reading shown by the electricity meter, as such we are of the considered opinion that there is no deficiency or illegality on the part of OPs in issuance of the impugned bill.  It is a settled principle of law that the Nigam is entitled to recover the charges of the energy consumed by the consumer. 

11.                        In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present complaint is without any merits and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.  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:08.06.2018

                                                                   (Raghbir Singh)                                                                                   President                                 (M.K.Khurana)                                             Distt. Consumer Dispute

Member                                        Redressal Forum, Fatehabad.