BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHABAD.

                                                           Complaint No.:69 of 2018.

                                                           Date of Instt.: 07.03.2018.

                                                           Date of Decision: 10.09.2018.

Mohinder Singh son of Ranjeet Singh, resident of village Dhangar, Tehsil and District Fatehabad.

                                                                             …Complainant.

                             Versus

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

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

3.      Junior Engineer, Sub-Office, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran     

         Nigam, Badopal, Tehsil and 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. S.S. Marothia, counsel for the complainant.

Sh. Kuldeep Sharma, 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 with the averments that a domestic electricity connection bearing no. DR-1D-920-A has been installed in his house at village Dhangar by the OPs.  The complainant has been using the said electricity connection and making payment of the genuine bills issued by the OPs regularly and there is nothing due against the complainant in respect of the above mentioned electricity connection.  Therefore, the complainant falls within the definition of consumer of the OPs as provided in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2.                          It is further submitted that the electricity meter in question is a single face and the sanctioned load of the same is 1.2 kilowatt only.  The average consumption of the energy by the complainant on the abovesaid electricity connection is not more than 250 units bimonthly.

3.                          It is further submitted that for the period from 3.8.2017 to 30.10.2017 the OPs issued an electricity bill payable on 29.11.2017 for a sum of Rs. 20,282/- and the units consumed during the abovesaid period were shown as 2674 units, the old reading was shown as 374 units and the new reading was shown as 3021 units.  It is further submitted that practically it is not possible for the complainant to consume these units within a period of 2 months even if all the electricity points upto sanctioned load of 1.2 kilowatt are used round the clock.  It is further submitted that the complainant visited the OPs and requested to correct the said bills and he was assured by the OPs that in the very next bill the necessary correction shall be made.  However, in the next bill also the abovesaid amount was added.  Thereafter, the complainant deposited an amount of Rs. 11,000/- in lumpsum on the asking of the OPs.

4.                          It is also further submitted that the OPs are having different slabs for charging the consumer in respect of number of units consumed and the OPs have very cleverly shown the consumption of units in a one particular bill payable on 9.11.2017 which has resulted into issuance of huge bill as the slab for charging these many units in one particular period is on the higher side.  From the same, it is very clear that the OPs are causing wrongful loss to the consumers and wrong game to themselves by showing all the units consumed for a longer period in one particular bill.  It is also further submitted that the abovesaid act on the part of OPs amounts to deficiency in rendering service to the complainant.  The complainant has prayed that necessary corrections be made in the bills payable on 9.11.2017, 12.1.2018 and 6.3.2018 keeping in view the period when actual consumption was made.  The complainant has further prayed that the OPs may be directed for making a payment of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation to the complainant on account of mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him.

5.                          On being served the OPs appeared and filed written statement, wherein various preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, cause of action, locus standi and concealment of true and correct facts etc. have been raised.

6.                          In reply on merits, it is submitted that the impugned electricity bills issued to the complainant is perfectly in accordance with the energy consumed by him and the complainant is liable to make payment of the same. All the allegations levelled against the OPs by the complainant have been denied and it is also submitted that there is no deficiency on the part of OPs in rendering service to the complainant.  Therefore, the present complaint is without any merits and as such the same is liable to be dismissed.

7.                          The learned counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of the complainant as Annexure CW1/A along-with documents as Exhibit C-1 to Exhibit C-5 and closed the evidence.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Krishan Singh JE as Exhibit RW1/A and the documents as Exhibit R-1 and closed the 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 of the present case. It is the case of the complainant that a domestic electricity meter has been installed in his house at village Dhangar by the OPs.  The said electricity meter is a single face and the sanctioned load on the said meter is only 1.2 kilowatt.  The average consumption of electricity by the complainant in a period of two months is not more than 250 units.  However, for the period from 3.8.2017 to 3.10.2017 the OPs sent the complainant a bill payable on 29.11.2017 for a sum of Rs. 20,282/- and the energy consumed shown in the abovesaid bill was 2674 units.  It is further the case of the complainant that practically it is not possible for the complainant to consume 2674 units within a period of 2 months even if all the electricity points upto sanctioned load are used round the clock.  It is further the case of the complainant that the OPs are having different slabs for charging the consumer in respect of number of units consumed and the OPs have very cleverly shown the consumption of units in one particular bill payable on 9.11.2017 which has resulted into issuance of huge amount of bill as the slab for charging these units in one particular period is very much on the higher side.  It is also further the case of the complainant that the OPs have been causing wrongful loss to the complainant and wrongful gain to themselves by showing all the units consumed for a longer period in one particular bill instead of showing the same on actual basis in the bimonthly bills for the relevant period.

9.                          On the other hand, it is the case of the OPs that the electricity bills issued to the complainant payable on 29.11.2017, payable on 12.1.2018 and payable on 6.3.2018 are perfectly in order and the same are of the energy consumed by the complainant and as such the complainant is liable for making the payment of the same.

10.                        After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material placed on record, we are of the opinion that the complainant has been able to prove deficiency on the part of OPs in issuing the electricity bills in dispute to the complainant.  In their written statement, the OPs have taken a stand that the impugned bill payable on 29.11.2017 for consumption of 2674 units issued to the complainant is of the energy consumed by the complainant.  However, it has not been clarified by the OPs in their written statement as to whether 2674 units were consumed by the complainant during the period from 3.8.2017 to 3.10.2017 or the same includes the arrears of previous period consumed by the complainant.  From perusal of the previous consumption pattern as shown in the electricity bill Exhibit C-4, it is revealed that in the bills for the month of April-2017, June-2017 and August-2017 the electricity bills sent to the complainant were not on the basis of actual meter reading and the same has not been issued on minimum basis. From the same, it seems that the bill of the energy consumed during the abovesaid period have been included in the electricity bill payable on 29.11.2017.  Otherwise also from perusal of the previous consumption pattern of the complainant, it is revealed that during the period from 6.2017 to 4.2018 the complainant has not consumed more than 150 units on bimonthly basis.  Therefore, the consumption of 2674 units within a period of 2 months on a single face electricity meter and having sanctioned load of 1.2 kilowatt is not probable.

11.                        In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the opinion that bill of the energy consumed by the complainant during the previous months have been added in the electricity bill payable on 29.11.2017 by the OPs.  The abovesaid act on the part of OP is not fair.  As per instructions/guidelines of the Nigam, it is obligatory on the part of OPs  to furnish electricity bills to the consumers on monthly or bimonthly basis and as per the actual meter reading as shown by the electricity meter.  It is a common practice that the OPs have not been deputing the meter readers to take the reading recorded in the meter on regular basis and electricity bills are sent to the consumers on the basis of average or minimum charges and when the meter reader visits to record the reading then the entire units consumed are shown in one particular bill and resultantly the slab of tariff increases.

12.                        It is not the case of the complainant that on account of any defect in the meter in question and excessive bill has been sent to the complainant whereas it is the case of the complainant that bill of the energy consumed by him previously has been added in a single bill and resultantly a bill of huge amount has been issued to him and tariff slab has also increased.  It is also pertinent to mention here that in his affidavit Annexure CW1/A has submitted that all the impugned electricity bills issued by OPs now have been deposited by him.

13.                        In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has been able to prove deficiency on the part of OPs in issuing the electricity bills in dispute.  The present complaint is accordingly allowed and the OPs are directed for making a payment of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation to the complainant and a payment of Rs. 5100/- as litigation charges.  The present order be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the present order, otherwise the abovesaid amount shall carry an interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the default period.  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:10.09.2018

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

Member                                      Redressal Forum, Fatehabad.