BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHABAD.

                                                           Complaint No.:117 of 2017.

                                                           Date of Instt.: 05.06.2017.

                                                           Date of Decision: 17.05.2018.

Karamjeet Singh aged 43 years son of Mahinder Singh, Caste Jat Sikh, resident of Dhani Ladhuwas, Tehsil Ratia, District Fatehabad now at H. No. 376, Sector-44-A, Chandigarh.

                                                                             …Complainant.

                             Versus

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

2.Sub-Divisional Officer, Operation Sub-division, Sub-Urban, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, 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. Sant Kumar, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. Pawan Ranga, Advocate 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 with the averments that a domestic electricity connection bearing account no. KAID-0284-H has been installed in the name of the complainant at Dhani Ladhuwas, District Fatehabad and the said electricity connection is being used by the complainant and the electricity bills are being regularly paid by him and there is nothing due against him.  Therefore, the complainant is a consumer of the OPs as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2.                          It is further submitted that the complainant in the month of February 2016, started living in Chandigarh along-with his family and as such he requested to the officials of the OPs to disconnect the abovesaid electricity connection installed in his house and not to further supply the electricity energy.  Upon this, the complainant was told by the officials of the OPs that in all a sum of Rs. 460/- is outstanding in respect of the above mentioned electricity connection and after depositing of the said amount the electricity connection of the complainant will be disconnected  without any delay and thereafter, there will not be any liability of the complainant.  Consequently, the complainant deposited the said amount of Rs. 460/- on 26.4.2016 in the office of the OPs and the electricity connection of the complainant was disconnected.  It is further submitted that thereafter the complainant and his family members never consumed the electricity energy from the abovesaid connection as the family had shifted to Chandigarh.  However, the OPs have issued an electricity bill payable on 11.5.2017 to the complainant and demanded a sum of Rs. 78,873/-, which is against law, null and void, arbitrary, against principles of natural justice and without affording any opportunity of being heard to the complainant and as such the complainant is not liable to make the payment of abovesaid amount to the OPs on the following grounds:-

(a)     That in the month of February 2016, the complainant along-with his family members started to reside at Chandigarh and the complainant requested to the officials of the respondents Nigam to disconnect the electric connection of the complainant and not to further supply the electricity energy on the electric connection of the complainant.

(b)     That it was told to the complainant by the officials of the respondents that in all, a sum of Rs. 460/- is due and outstanding in respect of the complainant’s electricity connection and after depositing the same, the electric connection of the complainant will be disconnected without any delay and after that there will be no liability of the complainant.  As such the complainant had deposited the amount of Rs. 460/- on 26.4.2016 in the office of the respondents Nigam and the electricity connection of the complainant was disconnected.

(c)      That after disconnection in the month of April 2016 and after depositing the amount of Rs. 460/- by the complainant, no electricity bill has been issued in the name of the complainant.

(d)     That it is also relevant to mention here that there is no details as to why the defendants allowed to accumulate such a huge amount, whereas according to the rules, even otherwise the electricity connection will be disconnected of any consumer in case of non-payment of one month electricity bill. 

(e)      That no opportunity of being heard has been given before demanding the amount of Rs. 78,873/- 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.

(f)      That no detail of impugned amount of Rs. 78,873/- of the alleged bill has been given to the complainant.

3.                          It is also further submitted that the electricity meter of the complainant was installed on the electricity pole on the back side of house of the complainant.  After receiving the impugned bill, the complainant inquired into the matter and came to know that the electricity meter of the complainant is still standing on the electricity pole whereas the same was to be removed immediately after disconnection of the electricity connection.

4.                          It is also further submitted that the complainant has been repeatedly asking the OPs to treat the alleged electricity bill as null and void and to restrain from affecting  the recovery of Rs. 78,873/- but all in vain.  The abovesaid act on the part of OPs in rendering service to the complainant amounts to deficiency and as such the complainant is entitled for a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- from the OPs on account of mental agony, harassment suffered by him.  The complainant has also prayed that the impugned electricity bill of Rs. 78,873/- may kindly be declared as null and void and may kindly be set aside.  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, concealment of true and correct facts, estoppel and jurisdiction etc. have been raised.

6.                          In reply on merits, it is admitted that an electricity connection bearing no. KAID-0284-H has been issued in the name of the complainant.  However, the OPs in their reply have denied all the other allegations made by the complainant in his complaint.  It is further submitted that the complainant had deposited an amount of Rs. 460/- on 26.4.2016 with the OPs.  It is further submitted that the impugned bill amounting to Rs. 78,873/- is perfectly in order and the same is of the energy consumed by the complainant.  Since the impugned bill is of the energy consumed by the complainant as such the OPs are entitled to recover the same from the complainant.  It is further submitted that there is no deficiency on the part of OPs in rendering service to the complainant in the present matter and as such the present complaint is liable to be dismissed.

7.                          The learned counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of the complainant as Exhibit C-1 and the documents as Annexure C-2 to Annexure C-4.  On the hand, Shri Bhoop Singh, Sub Divisional Engineer tendered in evidence his affidavit as Exhibit R-1.  The OPs also tendered in evidence document as Exhibit R-2.

8.                          The learned counsel for the complainant in his arguments submitted that the complainant with his family shifted to Chandigarh in the month of February 2016.  Therefore, he requested to the officials of the OPs to disconnect the electricity connection issued by the OPs at his residence in village Dhani Ladhuwas.  Upon this, he was told by the officials of the OPs that in all a sum of Rs. 460/- is outstanding against the complainant in respect of the abovesaid electricity connection and after depositing of the said amount the electricity connection in question shall be disconnected without any delay and thereafter there will be no liability of the complainant.  Consequently, the complainant deposited the amount of Rs. 460/- on 26.4.2016 in the office of OPs and abovesaid electricity connection was disconnected by the OPs and thereafter the complainant and his family never consumed the electricity from the abovesaid connection as the family had shifted to Chandigarh.  However, in spite of the abovesaid facts the OPs issued an electricity bill payable on 11.5.2017 and demanded a sum of Rs. 78,873/-.  It is further contended by the learned counsel that since the complainant and his family had shifted to Chandigarh and the electricity connection in question was disconnected and the family of the complainant, thereafter never consumed any electricity from the abovesaid electricity connection as such the abovesaid bill issued by the OPs is totally illegal, arbitrary, null and void, against facts and against the principles of natural justice and as such the same amounts to deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.  The impugned bill is liable to be set aside. It is further contended by the learned counsel that an electricity bill of 14 months was sent by the OPs and the same is against condition no. 24 or the Conditions of Supply wherein, it is mentioned that the Board shall render bill to the consumers monthly.  The learned counsel also further contended that the OPs in delivering the bill to the complainant has violated the instruction no. 153 and 154 issued by the OPs regarding delivery of bills.

9.                          The learned counsel for the OPs vehemently rebutted the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the complainant and reiterated the submissions made in the reply filed by the OPs in the present case.  The learned counsel further contended that the impugned electricity bill issued to the complainant is perfectly in accordance with the instructions and guidelines of the Nigam and the same is sustainable in the eyes of law.  The learned counsel further contended that the impugned bill issued to the complainant is of the energy consumed by the complainant.  The learned counsel in his arguments rebutted the contention of the complainant that after making a payment of Rs. 460/- by the complainant, the electricity was not consumed by the complainant and his family.  The learned counsel further contended that the present complaint is without any merits and as such the same is liable to be dismissed.

10.                        We have duly considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire material placed on record of the present case. It is the case of the complainant that on 26.4.2016 he had paid all the outstanding electricity bills of the OPs amounting to Rs. 460/- as the family of the complainant had shifted to Chandigarh.  Therefore, after making of outstanding dues the complainant requested the OPs for disconnection of the electricity connection and thereafter the same was disconnected by the OPs.  After disconnection of the electricity energy was never consumed by the family of the complainant.  However, a bill of Rs. 78,873/- payable on 11.5.2017 was issued to the complainant.  It is further the case of the complainant that since after depositing the outstanding bills on 26.4.2016 no electricity was consumed by the family of the complainant, as such the electricity bill in dispute is illegal, null and void, arbitrary and against condition no. 24 of the conditions of supply and without following instruction no. 153 and 154 of the sales manual of the OPs.

11.                        On the other hand, it is the case of the OPs that the electricity connection of the complainant was never disconnected and till date the same is in existence.  The impugned bill sent to the complainant is of the energy consumed by him during this period.  The impugned electricity bill issued to the complainant is perfectly in accordance with the instructions and guidelines of the Nigam and the OPs are entitled to recover the same from the complainant.

12.                        On hearing rival contentions of the parties and examining the documents placed on record minutely, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has not been able to prove any deficiency on the part of the OPs in the present case.  In support of his contention that the complainant had made any request for disconnection of the impugned electricity connection no documentary evidence/representation or application has been produced on record by the complainant.  The contention of the complainant that the abovesaid electricity connection was disconnected by the OPs is also not supported by any documentary evidence.  Therefore, the contention of the complainant that he had made request for disconnection of the abovesaid connection and thereafter the same was disconnected by the OPs is without any substance.  Whereas, from perusal of Exhibit R-2 i.e. account statement of the electricity connection of the complainant, it is revealed that in month of August 2016, 1935 units, in October 2016, 2293 units, in December 2016, 935 units, in February 2017, 804 units, in April 2017, 742 units, June 2017, 1301 units have been consumed by the complainant.  From the same, it is evident that the impugned electricity connection was not disconnected and during this period electricity energy was consumed from this connection.

13.                        In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present complaint 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:17.05.2018

                                                                   (Raghbir Singh)                                                                        

          President                                

(M.K.Khurana)                                 Distt. Consumer Dispute

   Member                           

 Redressal Forum, Fatehabad.