BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHABAD.
Complaint No.:279 of 2016.
Date of Instt.: 27.10.2016.
Date of Decision:06.09.2017.
Smt.Kailash Devi, aged 40 years, widow of Ram Sawrup, resident of Tohana Road, Buna, Tehsil & District Fatehabad.
…Complainant.
Versus
1.Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, through Executive Engineer, Operation Division DHBVN, Fatehabad Tehsil & District Fatehabad.
2.Sub-Divisional Officer, Operation Sub-Division, D.H.B.V.N Buna, District Fatehabad.
…Opposite Parties.
Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
BEFORE: Shri.Raghbir Singh, President.
Sh.R.S.Panghal, Member.
Smt.Ansuya Bishnoi, Member.
Present: Sh.Sant Kumar, counsel for the complainant.
Sh.P.K.Jora, counsel for the OPs.
ORDER:
Briefly stated the facts of the present complaint are that complainant is having domestic electricity connection bearing account No. No.B11D-2399-N in her name and she has been making the payment of all the electricity bills regularly and nothing is due against her. The opposite parties have issued a bill to the complainant for a sum of Rs.33,007/- (in which payment of Rs.29,830/- has been shown as sundry charges) payable on 11.02.2016 which is wrong, against law and facts, without providing any detail and opportunity of being heard, against the principles of natural justice, arbitrary, null and void and is liable to be set and the complainant is not liable to make any payment to the OPs on the grounds mentioned below:-
(a) that the complainant has never been found indulged in theft of energy and has never been found consuming electricity dishonestly or unauthorizedly.
(b) the house of the complainant is very small and the husband of the complainant has already been died and as such the monthly electricity bill of the complainant cannot be more than Rs.300/ per month.
(c) that it is the duty of the OPs Nigam to keep the meter correct and they cannot charge any amount on the basis of dead, slow and defective meter because only Chief Electrical Inspector can charge any amount on the basis of slow, dead or defective meter.
(d) that no opportunity of being heard has been given before demanding the amount of Rs.29,830/- and even no provisional assessment notice has been given to the complainant u/s 126 of Electricity Act, 2003 and due to this, the complainant has been deprived of his valuable right to file the objections and to file the appeal before the appellate authority.
(e) that no detail of impugned amount of Rs.29830/- of the alleged bill has been given to the complainant.
(f) that the complainant has come to know from the reliable sources that the said amount of sundry charges has been pointed out by the audit party of OPs Nigam, whereas no opportunity or notice has been given before issuing the impugned bill to the complainant.
(g) that the demand of the OPs is time barred and the complainant has never tampered with the meter or its seal and meter of the complainant was working OK. Even otherwise to keep and maintain correct meter is the responsibility of the OPs Nigam.
(h) that the meter of the complainant has not been tested from any lab and no notice has been given to the complainant in this respect.
(i) that no checking has been carried out in the presence of the complainant or its authorized representative.
(j) that no parallel meter has been installed to check and verify the working of the meter of the complainant.
(k) that the official who have alleged to be checked the meter and declared it slow, were not authorized to do so.
(l) that no notice has been given to the complainant before the alleged checking done by the OPs Nigam as mentioned in the impugned notice. Moreover no date has been mentioned regarding any checking in the impugned notice.
Now the OPs are bent upon to recover the amount of sundry charges of Rs.29830/- of the impugned electricity bill and to disconnect the electricity connection of the complainant for which they are not legally entitled and have no right to do so.
The OPs Nigam is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and the heavy penalty imposed upon the complainant is only in order to gain wrongful profit and to cause wrongful loss to the complainant.
It is further averred that the complainant has been repeatedly asking the OPs to treat the impugned electricity bill payable on 23.6.2016 as null and void but in vain as the OPs have not only flatly refused to do so rather they have also started extending threats to the complainant to immediately effect the recovery of the said amount from the complainant and to disconnect the electricity connection of the complainant in case of non payment of the above said amount. There is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and thus, she is entitled to compensation of Rs.20,000/- from the opposite parties on account of mental agony and harassment. Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and contested the complaint by filing joint reply taking preliminary objections regarding maintainability, cause of action, locus standi and suppression of material facts On merits, it has been submitted that in the month of July 2015 the meter reading of electric meter of the complainant was recorded as 727 units but the complainant has paid the electricity bill of 270 units. In this way electricity consumption of 457 units (727-270) for the period of June and July, 2015 remained pending and according to rules and instructions of the Nigam, the electricity bill of Rs.3043/- was issued to complainant but the same was not deposited by the complainant. After that in the month of September, 2015 the meter reading of complainant’s meter was recorded as 1603 units and electricity bill of Rs.9296/- was issued by the adding the previous bill but the complainant had deposited the amount of Rs.5000/-. In this way (Rs.9296-5000) Rs.4296/- plus Rs.124 surcharge i.e. Rs.4420/- was outstanding against the complainant. After that in the month of November 2015, the electricity reading was recorded wrongly by the meter-reader as 1517 units, whereas the previous reading recorded in the month of September was 1603 units. As such the electricity bill was issued to the complainant on average basis of 666 units by adding the outstanding balance of Rs.4420/-. In this way, the electricity bill of Rs.9068/- was issued to complainant but the complainant did not deposit the said bill and moved an application on 05.12.2016 for correcting his electricity bill and on this application appropriate action was taken and the reading of electricity meter of the complainant was recorded as 3128 and as such the account of the complainant was overhauled and the average electricity units bill was adjusted and the electricity bill of consumed units amounting to Rs.20546/- was issued to the complainant in the month of January 2016, but the same was not deposited by the complainant and as such after adding surcharge amount of Rs. 605/- (Rs.20546+605/-) Rs.21151/- was due and outstanding against the complainant. After that electricity meter of the complainant was changed on 27.02.2016 and in the month of March, 2016 the reading of the meter was recorded as 0 units and as such the electricity bill was issued to the complainant on average basis of 876 units and after adding the previous outstanding amount of Rs.21,151/-, the electricity bill of Rs.27,150/- was issued to the complainant and the complainant admitting the same, has deposited the Rs.2500/- as part payment. In this way (Rs.27150-2500)=Rs.24650/- plus Rs.799 surcharge amount, total amount of Rs.25449/- was due against the complainant. In the month of May, 2016 the meter reading of the complaint was recorded as 326 units and electricity bill of Rs.27,438/- was issued by adding the previous bill but the complainant deposited the amount of Rs.2000/-. In this way (Rs.27,438-2000)=Rs.25438 plus 746 surcharge i.e. Rs.26,184/- was due against the complainant. In the month of July, 2016 the meter reading of the complainant’s was recorded 776 units and bill of Rs.28,980/- was issued by adding the previous bill. But the complainant did not deposit the same. After adding surcharge amount of Rs.851/- total Rs.29,831/- was due and outstanding against the complainant. In the month of September, 2016 the meter reading of the complainant's was recorded as 1261 units whereas previous electricity units were 776 and as such electricity bill amounting to Rs.32891/- was issued by adding the previous bill and the surcharge amount of Rs.966. Hence the electricity bill has been issued to complainant in accordance with law and the complainant is liable to make the payment of electricity bill. With these averments, dismissal of complaint has been prayed for.
3. In evidence the complainant Smt. Kailash Devi produced her affidavit as Ex.CW1/A and copy of the electricity bill Annexure C1. On the other hand, Ops produced affidavit of Sh.Dharampal, SDO as Annexure RW1/A, Application for rectify in the bill as Annexure R1, copy of sundry charges report as Annexure R2 and Annexure R3 as copy of ledger.
4. The learned counsel for the complainant in his arguments reiterated the submission made in the complaint and further contended that bill issued to the complainant dated 27.09.2016 for a sum of Rs.33,007/- in which payment of Rs.29,830/- has been shown as sundry charges is against law and facts, arbitrary, null and void. It is further contended that the sundry charges have been issued to the complainant without affording an opportunity of hearing and as such the same is against principles of natural justice and in violation of the provisions of Electricity Act of 2003 and as such the complainant has been deprived of the right of filing objection and right of an appeal before the appellate authority. The learned counsel further contended that no details of the amount of Rs.29,830/- has been furnished to the complainant. Therefore, the impugned bill is liable to be set aside.
5. On the other hand the learned counsel for the OPs rebutted the contentions of the counsel for the complainant and reiterated the averments made in the written version. The learned counsel contended that the impugned bill issued to the complainant is perfectly in accordance with the Rules and instructions of Nigam and sustainable in the eyes of law. The bill issued to the complainant is of the units consumed by her meter and the amount of arrear of previous bills which were not deposited by the complainant. The counsel further prayed for dismissal of the complaint being devoid of only merit.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence and documents on the file carefully.
7. After hearing both the counsels and going through the material available on the case file, this Forum is of the considered opinion that present complaint is baseless and having no merit. The complainant has challenged the impugned bill dated 27.09.2016 on the ground that an amount of Rs.29,830/- has been shown as sundry charges in the above said bill of Rs.33,007/- and no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the complainant before issuing the sundry charges. The issuance of sundry charges without giving any show cause/opportunity of hearing is against the principle of natural justice and provisions of Electricity Act of 2003. However, the above said ground/plea of the complainant is not factually correct. A perusal of the record of the present case reveals that Rs.29,830/- is an amount of previous bills and surcharges which was not paid by the complainant. The said bill is the amount of units consumed by the complainant in the previous months. The said amount is not the sundry charges. For issuance of the arrear of units previously consumed no opportunity of hearing was required to be afforded under the Electricity Act. From perusal of the record it is revealed that on the application dated 05.12.2015 moved by the complainant for correcting her electricity bill, an appropriate action was taken by the OP and bill was corrected and a sum of Rs.4477/- was adjusted in her account. It is also pertinent to mention here that the correctness of the meter has not been challenged/disputed by the complainant. On the other hand the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and has concealed the material facts from this Forum. In para No.1 of the complaint the complainant has averred that he is making the payment of all the electricity bills regularly and there is nothing due against the complainant. However, the above said averment of the complainant is not correct. From perusal of the documents on record of the file it is revealed that the complainant is not making payment of the electricity bills regularly and on a number of times the complainant has deposited part payment.
8. It is strange that on one hand the complainant is trying to show that the bill in question is illegal and has not been issued as per actual consumption and on the other hand she has not paid the electricity charges which were calculated by the Nigam after checking the premises of the complainant. The act and conduct of the complainant clearly shows that he has not approached this Forum with bonafide intention and in this way or that way he has concealed material facts from this Forum.
9. In view of the aforementioned discussion we are of the considered opinion that the complaint deserves dismissal. It is ordered accordingly. There is no order as to costs. Since the complainant has already deposited 40 % of the disputed amount i.e. Rs.29,830/- therefore, she is directed to pay remaining 60 % of the disputed amount i.e. Rs. 29,830/- with Nigam within one month. The interim order dated 05.12.2016 passed by this Forum stands vacated. 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:06.09.2017
(Raghbir Singh)
President
(Ansuya Bisnoi) (R.S.Panghal)
District Consumer Disputes Member Member
Redressal Forum, Fatehabad.
