BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHABAD.
Complaint No.:83 of 2016.
Date of Instt.: 14.03.2016.
Date of Decision: 02.05.2017.
Ravi Kumar son of Risal Singh resident of village Bhodia Khera Tehsil & District Fatehabad.
…Complainant.
Versus
1. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Tehsil & District Fatehabad through its Executive Engineer, Operation Division.
2. Sub-Divisional Officer, Operation Sub-Division, Sub-Urban Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Tehsil & District Fatehabad.
…Opposite Parties.
Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
BEFORE: Shri.Raghbir Singh, President. Smt.Ansuya Bishnoi, Member. Sh.R.S.Panghal, Member.
Present: Sh. R.K.Panwar, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Parveen Kumar Jora, counsel for the opposite parties.
ORDER:
Briefly stated the facts of the present complaint are that complainant is having domestic electricity connection bearing account No. No.BK-1D/2573 in his name and has been making the payment of all the electricity bills regularly and there is nothing due against him. It has been further averred that the meter of the complainant was not working properly but despite that the OPs had issued wrong and incorrect bills and also failed to give satisfactory reply to the complainant. The OPs have issued a bill for the March, 2014 to the complainant for 3521 units, therefore, the complainant visited the OPs and requested to check the meter and to correct the impugned bill but they kept on showing the previous wrong amount in the future bills. It has been further averred that thereafter the OPs have issued a bill for a sum of Rs.34,361/- payable on 24.11.2014 to the complainant wherein an amount of Rs.32,423/- has been shown as arrears qua previous bills 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 aside. It has been further averred that instead of correcting the impugned bill the OPs had disconnected the electricity connection of the complainant and refused to correct the impugned bill. There is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence, this complaint. In evidence, the complainant has tendered his affidavit as Annexure C1 and documents as Annexure C2 to Annexure C16.
2. Upon notice, OPs appeared and contested the complaint by filing joint reply taking preliminary objections regarding maintainability, cause of action, locus standi and suppression of material facts. It has been specifically submitted that in the month of December 2013 bill of the complainant was Rs.200/- but the same was not paid by the complainant, therefore, surcharge of Rs.6/- was added in the bill of the complainant and after that electricity bill for consuming 3521 units amounting to Rs.26085/- was issued to the complainant in the month of March, 2014 but he did not make the payment of the said bill, therefore, an amount of Rs.772/- was added as surcharge. After that the complainant had consumed 142 units in the month of April, 2014, thereof, after adding the bill for these units the bill for an amount of Rs.27445/- was issued to the complainant but he did make the payment, therefore, surcharge of Rs.812/- was added in the account of the complainant. After that the complainant consumed 250 units till the month of June, 2014 and an amount of Rs.981/- for this was added in the previous bill and bill for an amount of Rs.29420/- and when the complainant did not make the payment of the bill then surcharge amount of Rs.871/-was added in the account of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant consumed 257 units and an amount of Rs.31491/- including the bill of Rs.1012.50 for these units and the previous outstanding amount was sent to the complainant but he did not make the payment thereof, therefore, the OPs had again added surcharge to the tune of Rs.932/- on the same. Thereafter in the month of October, 2014 the OPs had issued bill to the tune of Rs.33373/- wherein the bill of Rs.801/- for 210 consumed units including the arrears of the previous amount was shown. It has been further averred that the complainant had consumed 125 units till 12.11.2014, therefore, bill of 34964/- including Rs.490.50/- for these units and including the previous outstanding amount and surcharge of Rs.1035/- was issued to the complainant. When the complainant failed to make the payment of the billed amount then on 12.11.2014 his connection was declared PDCO and disconnected. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The other pleas of the complainant have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. In evidence, the Ops have tendered affidavit of Sh.Jeet Ram Salora, SDO as Annexure RW1 and documents as Annexure R1/1.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence and documents on the file carefully. Learned counsel for the complainant during arguments reiterated the contentions made in the complaint and prayed for its acceptance whereas learned counsel for the Ops rebutted these arguments and re-asserted the averments taken in the reply.
4. Undisputedly, the connection of the complainant was declared PDCO on 12.11.2014 and was disconnected, therefore, during the proceedings of this complaint while disposing of stay application, this Forum had ordered for restoring/reconnecting the electricity connection of the complainant on depositing of 50 % of the disputed amount. Learned counsel for the OPs have specifically mentioned in the reply and affidavit Annexure RW1 that the bill for 3521 units was sent to the complainant as per actual consumption and this version also find support from copy of ledger Annexure R1/1. It is well established on the case file that when the complainant did not make the payment of that bill then the OPs kept on sending the bills of current units including the alleged amount of Rs.26085/- and when the complainant did not make the payment of outstanding amount of Rs.34361/- (under challenge in this complaint) then his electricity connection was disconnected vide PDCO dated 12.11.2014. It is strange that on one hand the complainant has claimed that he has been making the bills of electricity regularly and on the other hand has concealed the material facts from this Forum and instead of making the payment of the consumed units he has approached to this Forum witouth leading cogent and reliable evidence. The complainant has even did not bother to file rejoinder to the reply to rebut the stand taken by the OPs. Another surprising factor which this Forum has noticed that the complainant had not moved any application to the complainant either to check the meter or to correction of the bill which shows that the outstanding amount was very much in his knowledge. The OPs have taken a specific stand that the bill under challenge is correct and as per actual consumption and it has every right to recover the same from the consumer. There is nothing on the file to show that the bill in question had been issued wrongly and illegally therefore, it was obligatory on the complainant to deposit the amount as shown in the bill in question being legal and genuine but instead of depositing the electricity bill with the Nigam the complainant has approached to this Forum without any reason by twisting the facts. The complainant has not been able to prove his case by leading cogent and reliable evidence, therefore, the present complaint deserves dismissal.
5. 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 50 % of the disputed amount therefore, he is directed to pay the remaining amount with the Nigam within one month. The interim order dated 12.05.2016 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:02.05.2017
(Raghbir Singh)
President (R.S.Panghal) (Ansuya Bisnoi)
Distt.Consumer Disputes Member Member
Redressal Forum, Fatehabad.
