BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.            

                                                          Consumer Complaint no. 160 of 2019                                                                         

                                                            Date of Institution         :        03.04.2019                                                                    

                                                               Date of Decision   :        23.10.2019.

Narender Singh aged about 36 years son of Shri Ranjeet Singh, resident of Ding Mandi, Sirsa, District Sirsa.

            ……Complainant.

                                                Versus.

1. Superintending Engineer, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Hisar.

2. Sub Divisional Officer, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Sub Division Ding District Sirsa.

..…Opposite parties.    

            Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

Before:        SHRI R.L. AHUJA…………….. PRESIDENT                                                 

                   SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR………….. MEMBER        

Present:       Sh. M.S. Gill, Advocate for the complainant.

Sh. Vijay Sharma, Advocate for the opposite parties.

ORDER

                        In brief, the case of complainant is that an electricity connection bearing account No.SG01-1805 is installed in the house of complainant. The same is standing in the name of father of complainant who has been expired. The said connection is running since the year 2018 and is being used by family of complainant. In this manner, the complainant being the user of the said connection is the consumer of the ops. It is further averred that since the day of installation of the said connection, the complainant has been making the payment of the electricity bills as per consumed units regularly and he has never been declared defaulter by the ops. That complainant had received an electricity bill bearing No.00223 dated 5.1.2019 issued by the ops vide which they had claimed an amount of Rs.2694/- for 19 consumed units as the old units were 608 and the fresh reading was 627. The said bill was duly paid by the complainant on 22.1.2019. It is further averred that thereafter on 3.3.2019, the op issued a further bill bearing no.00223 dated 3.3.2019 vide which the ops had claimed a sum of Rs.90,919/- showing the consumed units to be 6632. Vide this bill, the ops had deducted old 627 units from the present allegedly consumed 6632 units and had issued the bill double of the remaining allegedly consumed 6005 units to be Rs.90,916/- including surcharge of Rs.2691/- and the complainant was asked to pay the same on or before 20.3.2019, whereas the complainant had never consumed such alleged units in such a manner rather he consumed the units in the average manner as earlier used by him. The perusal of the bill shows that the printing of the same is not up to the mark and the same has been mistakenly issued to the complainant by the ops. The meter was faulty and jumped by showing the excess units to be consumed. That immediately after receipt of aforesaid excessive bill, the complainant approached the ops by way of a written application dated 20.3.2019 and requested them to withdraw the aforesaid bill and to rectify the aforesaid wrong bill. The ops while making an entry over the original bill had admitted the bill to be wrong and asked the complainant to deposit a sum of Rs.34,716/- instead of Rs.93607/- but as the said amount calculated by the ops was also very much excessive than the actual consumed units, therefore, the complainant showed his inability to deposit the said amount with the ops. It is further averred that later on in reply to the complaint made by complainant, op no.2 issued a letter bearing No.1142 dated 28.3.2018 vide which op no.2 held the aforesaid corrected bill to be genuine and asked the complainant to pay the same. The said reply is also not in accordance with the law and is far away from the actual and factual position and same is not at all binding upon the complainant and is liable to be withdrawn. That the aforesaid bill no.00223 dated 3.3.2019 issued by the ops is wrong, illegal, unlawful, against law and facts and is liable to be withdrawn/ set aside and the amount already paid by complainant is liable to be adjusted in his future bills. That the ops have committed gross negligence in their services and unfair trade practice and on account of the same, the complainant has suffered unnecessary harassment and mental tension. Hence, this complaint.

2.                On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that complainant is not the consumer of the Nigam as per rule and thus, he has no right or cause of action to file present complaint against the ops. It is further submitted that the bills since the month of February, 2019 are still outstanding towards the complainant and in default of making the payment regularly, the connection can be disconnected as per rules. The bill dated 5.1.2019 was issued for depositing amount of Rs.2694/- for 19 consumed units including previous outstanding amount of Rs.2077/-, which was paid by the complainant. It is further submitted that as per bill for the month of February, 2019, reading was 6632 units and after deducting previous reading of 627 units, it came to 6006 units and the complainant was to be charged for the said 6005 consumed units, but while billing, the digit 2 was inadvertently written in the column of MF (Meter Fault) instead 1 and consumed units were multiplied with said 2 digit and thus difference between old and new reading inadvertently became 12010 instead of 6005 and total consumption charges of Rs.90916/- was inadvertently mentioned in the bill dated 3.3.2019 and thereafter on the complaint made by complainant, same was rectified after deducting the excess amount inadvertently added in the bill and thus the complainant was directed to pay the actual consumption charges of Rs.34716/- excluding surcharges. But despite this fact, the complainant was not ready to deposit the said actual amount of Rs.34716/- and surcharge thereon after due date and complainant alleged that the reading of meter jumped. It is further submitted that meter of complainant was checked on 5.3.2019 vide LL-1 checking report No.705/4 dated 5.3.2019 vide which the meter reading 6758 units was found at the spot and meter blinking found within permissible limit, which clearly shows that meter reading and its working is OK. Moreover, thereafter, the complainant deposited fee on 12.3.2019 to check the meter from Lab and thus on the request of complainant, the checking was carried at the premises of complainant in his presence and connected load of 4.325 KW was found at the spot and meter reading of 6796 units was found and meter was removed and packed and duly sealed by the checking party and seals were duly signed by the checking party and complainant. The meter was referred to M&T Lab, Sirsa for verification of seals, accuracy of meter, working of meter, reading, body etc. and new meter having Sr. No.83909880 was installed. Thereafter on 14.3.2019, the meter was checked in M&T Lab, Sirsa and meter reading was found within permissible limit as reading moves from 6796.1 to 6797.1 units. Hence, there is no fault or jump in the meter reading, hence the aforesaid reading of 6632 units was actual consumed units. Hence, the complainant is liable to make payment of Rs.34,716/-. Remaining contents of the complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.

3.                The parties then led their respective evidence.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for parties and have perused the case file carefully.

5.                The complainant in order to prove his complaint has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which he has deposed and reiterated all the averments made in the complaint. He has also furnished bills Ex.C1, Ex.C2, copy of application Ex.C3, copy of driving licence Ex.C4, bills Ex.C5 to Ex.C7 and copy of receipt Ex.C8. On the other hand, ops have tendered affidavit of Sh. Reepandeep Chawla, SDO as Ex.R1 in which he has deposed and reiterated all the averments made in the written statement and they have also tendered copy of report Ex.R2, copy of checking report Ex.R3, copy of request for checking of meter Ex.R4, copy of report Ex.R5, copy of service job order Ex.R6, copy of application Ex.R7, copy of letter Ex.R8, copy of billing detail Ex.R9 and copy of detail Ex.R10.

6.                Undisputedly complainant is using electric connection bearing No. SG01-1805 and making payments of consumption charges as per bills, but however, a dispute arose between the parties after issuance of bill dated 3.3.2019 by which complainant was called upon to pay Rs.90,919/- showing consumed units to be 6632 vide bill Ex.C1. But however, same was protested by complainant as a result of which ops rectified bill and he was asked to pay an amount of Rs.34,716/- The complainant has challenged aforesaid bill also on the ground that actual consumption is much less than the consumption recorded in this bill.

7.                Though, ops have taken specific plea that on the request of complainant, meter was removed and was sent to M&T Lab. and after receiving of same, a report was prepared by concerned official and thereafter an amount of Rs.34716/- was claimed on account of actual consumption of the consumer/ complainant after verifying all the necessary facts, but however, learned counsel for complainant has stated at bar that still complainant is not satisfied with the consumption shown by ops in the bill by which an amount of Rs.34,716/- was claimed. So, it will be in the fitness of things, if present complaint is partly allowed and a direction is given to the ops to overhaul his account in his presence.

8.                In view of our above discussion, present complaint is partly allowed and we direct the opposite parties to overhaul the account of complainant in his presence after serving a seven days prior notice to the complainant and thereafter reassess the consumption of units and make demand of consumption charges etc. and thereafter to provide 15 days time to deposit the amount so claimed by ops. In case it is found that excess amount has already been deposited by complainant, the ops shall make refund of the amount or shall adjust the amount in future bills. In case complainant is not satisfied with new assessment of the bill, he will be at liberty to avail remedy by filing a fresh complaint on the basis of new cause of action. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.  

Announced in open Forum.                                                     President,

Dated:23.10.2019.                             Member                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                          Redressal Forum, Sirsa.