BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHABAD.
Complaint no.314/2018.
Date of instt.03.10.2018.
Date of Decision:24.12.2019.
Sanjay son of Lila Krishan, resident of Gawar City Ratia, District Fatehabad.
..Complainant.
Versus
- Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam through Executive Engineer, Operation Division, DHBVN, Fatehabad.
- Sub-Division Officer, Operation Sub-Division, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, City Ratia, District Fatehabad.
..Respondents/OPs.
Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before: Sh.Raghbir Singh, President.
Sh. Jasvinder Singh, Member.
Argued by: Sh. Sant Kumar, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Harpal Garoha, Advocate for OPs.
ORDER
The present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by the complainant against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter to be referred as OPs) with the averments that a domestic electricity connection bearing account No.RAID-1310-A has been installed at Gawar City Ratia in the name of the Boota Singh and the complainant has been using the said electricity connection and has been making the payment of all the electricity bills regularly and there is nothing due against the complainant. Therefore, the complainant is consumer of the Ops as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. It is further submitted that the Ops have issued an electricity bill to the complainant vide which a sum of Rs.30,352/- payable on 27.8.2018 was demanded which is against law, null and void, arbitrary, against principle of natural justice and as such the complainant is not liable to make any payment to the OPs on the following grounds:-
a) that the complainant has never been found indulging in theft of energy and the complainant has never been found consuming electricity dishonestly and the complainant never consumed, used or abstracted and even never attempted to use, consumer of abstract the electric dishonestly.
b) That the house of the complainant is very small and as such the monthly electricity bill of the complainant cannot be more than Rs.400 or 500.00 bio-monthly.
c) That it is the duty of the respondents Nigam to keep the meter correct.
d) That bill of Rs.30,352/- payable on 27.8.2018 is wrong and incorrect and the complainant is not bound to pay the said bill amount to the respondents because the house of the complainant is small and electricity bill of the complainant is not more than 400-500 monthly.
e) That in the said bill payable on 27.8.2018, old reading has been shown by respondents 1 unit and new reading has been shown 2574 units and consumption has been shown as 3847 units which is impossible in two month even 24 hours run the meter, even otherwise meter is domestic one. Similarly, the bill amounting to Rs.14,162/-, payable on 20.6.2018, in which old reading has been shown 6369 units and new reading has been shown 0 units, but consumption has been shown 1000 units which is totally wrong and incorrect. Therefore, it is clear that meter either became defective or his behavior became erratic or reading has been taken by mistake, however nothing has been mentioned in the impugned bills regarding taking such huge consumption i.e. 2574 and 1000 units consumption.
f) That similarly, the respondents has been shown 2269 units consumption in 04/18 and 2052 units consumpition in 10/2017 and 1320 units in August 2017 which are totally wrong and incorrect.
g) That the respondents have installed a new meter by removing the old meter, but the new meter also was not working properly and the consumption of units was outcome very fastly. Thus, there is fault on the account of service of the respondents.
h) That from the investigations of abovesaid bills it is clear that the respondents every time issuing the wrong and incorrect bill to the complainant and after asked several times by the complainant to the respondents to correct the said bills, but the respondents did not correct the bills of the complainant and give excuses of not proper working of the consumer.
i) That demand of the respondents is time barred.
j) That no opportunity is being heard has been given to the complainant before issuing the alleged bill of amounting to Rs.30,352/- payable on 27.8.2018.
k) That no provisional assessment notice has been given to the complainant/s 126 of The 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.
l) That no detail of impugned amount of Rs.30,352/- of the alleged bill has been given to the complainant.
m) That no checking has been carried out in the presence of the complainant or its authorized representative;
n) That no parallel meter has been installed to check and verify the working of the meter of the complainant.
o) That inspite of the request made by the complainant to the respondents that bill of the complainant may please be corrected, but the respondents have refused to accede the request of the complainant.
3. It is also further submitted that the Ops are not entitled to charge any surcharge on account of bills issued to the complainant and the same is illegal and without jurisdiction. The OPs is a company incorporated under Companies Act, 1956 and the heavy penalty have been imposed upon the complainant in order to gain wrongful profit. It is further submitted that the complainant has repeatedly asked the OPs to treat the impugned electricity bill payable on 27.8.2018 as null and void but all in vain. The abovesaid act on the part of OPs amounts to deficiency in rendering service to the complainant. The complainant has further prayed that for acceptance of the present complaint and declaration the electricity bill amounting to Rs.30,352/- payable on 27.8.2018 as null and void. The complainant has further prayed for a compensation amounting to Rs.20,000/- on account of mental agony and physical harassment. Hence, the present complaint.
4. Upon notice, the OPs appeared through its counsel and resisted the complaint by filing a written statement wherein various preliminary objections with regard to locus standi, cause of action, maintainability, estoppel and concealment of true and correct facts etc., have been raised.
5. In reply on merits, it is submitted that on the basis of electricity consumed by the complainant a sum of Rs.30,352/- was demanded by the OPs from the complainant. It has been further denied that the abovesaid demand by the Ops is null and void against law, against facts and jurisdiction. The impugned bill has been sent to the complainant perfectly on the basis of energy consumed by the complainant. All the allegations made in the complaint against the OPs have been denied. It has been further submitted that there is no deficiency on the part of OPs in rendering service to the complainant. The present complaint is without any merits and as such the same is liable to be dismissed.
6. The learned counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of the complainant as Annexure C-1 alongwith the documents as Annexure C-2 and Annexure C-3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Anand Parkash SDO as Annexure R-1 alongwith the documents as Annexure R-2 and Annexure R-3.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the documents placed on record. It is the case of the complainant that a domestic electricity connection has been installed in Gawar City Ratia, District Fatehabad in the name of Boota Singh and the said connection is being used by the complainant and payment of all the electricity bills has been regularly made by the complainant and there is nothing due against him.
8. It is further the case of the complainant that the electricity bill for a sum of Rs.30,352/- payable on 27.08.2018 has been issued to the complainant wherein the old reading has been shown as one unit and the new reading has been shown as 2574 units and whereas consumption by the complainant in the above said meter has been shown as 3847 units. Therefore, the above said calculation is incorrect and moreover consumption of 3847 units in two months in a domestic electricity connection is impossible. It is further the case of the complainant that similarly a bill amount of Rs.14,162/- payable on 20.06.2018 was issued wherein the old reading was shown as 6369 units and new reading has been shown as 1000 units which is also wrong and incorrect. It is further the case of the complainant that either the electricity meter is defective or its behavior has become erratic or reading has been taken by mistake. Therefore the issuance of the above said bills to the complainant amounts to deficiency on the part of the OPs in rendering service to him and as such the electricity bill amount to Rs.30,352/- payable on 27.08.2018 is liable to be set aside.
9. On the other hand, it is the case of the OPs that the impunged electricity bill issued to the complainant is perfectly in accordance with the consumption of energy by the complainant. It is further the case of the OPs that the meter of the complainant was changed and the reading of the old meter and the new meter of the complainant was included and the same has not been mentioned by the complainant in his complaint.
10. We have duly considered the arguments of learned counsel for both the parties and have also examined the documents placed on record. A perusal of impunged bill(Annexure C-2) payable on 27.08.2018 reveals that the above said bill has been issued on the basis of actual meter reading and the same is for the period from 19.05.2018 to 17.07.2018. In the above said bill old reading has been shown as 1 unit and new reading has been shown as 2574 units. However total consumed units has been shown as 3847. Therefore, the consumed units have not been calculated correctly and on the basis of incorrect calculation an amount of Rs.30,352/- has been issued to the complainant for 3847 units. In the bill, it has not been explained how a bill of 3847 units has been issued to the complainant whereas as per the above said electricity bill (Annexure C-2), the difference between old reading and new reading is 2574 units. The OPs although in the affidavit in evidence has submitted that the reading of previous meter has been added in the impunged electricity bill which was changed. However neither in the written statement nor in the impunged electricity bill, it has been explained how much units have been consumed in the previous meter.
11. 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 rendering service to the complainant. The present complaint is accordingly allowed and the impunged bill payable on 27.08.2018(Annexure C-2) is hereby set aside. The OPs are directed to issue the electricity bill to the complainant for consumption of 2574 units for the period from 19.5.2018 to 17.7.2018. The OPs are further directed for making a payment of Rs.5000/- to the complainant as compensation and litigation charges. Copy of this order be communicated to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 24.12.2019.
(Jasvinder Singh) (Raghbir Singh)
Member President
