BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHABAD.
Complaint no. 130/2018.
Date of instt. 03.05.2018
Date of Decision: 28.02.2020
Shyam Lal aged-30 yrs. S/o Sh. Gurdas R/o Dhani Tahliwali, Tehsil & District Fatehabad.
..Complainant.
Versus
- Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam through its Executive Engineer Division DHBVN, Fatehabad, Tehsil & District Fatehabad.
- S.D.O. Operation DHBVN Sub Urban Fatehabad, 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. Ramanand, Advocate for complainant. Sh. Anil Kumar Solra, 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 he is a resident of village Tahliwali District Fatehabad and a domestic electricity connection bearing no. KPD-0348 has been issued by the Ops in the name of the complainant at his residence and he has been making payment of the electricity bills regularly. Therefore he is consumer of the OPs as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. It is further submitted that a bill amounting to Rs.77,710/- payable on 09.05.2018 was issued by the OPs wherein an amount of Rs.73,710/- of arrears and an amount of Rs.259/- of fuel charges and Rs.3672/- of energy charges has been included. The said bill is wrong and illegal and the same is liable to be set aside. Regarding rectification of the electricity bill, the complainant requested the OPs several times but all in vain and it was replied by the OPs that the said bill will have to be deposited by the complainant and the complainant was further warned that electricity connection of the complainant will be disconnected. It is further submitted that the complainant never committed theft the electricity and it is the responsibility of the OPs to keep the electricity meter in order. It is further submitted that the above said act on the part of the OPs amounts to deficiency in rendering service to him. The complainant has further prayed that the OPs may be directed to correct the impugned electricity bill and has further prayed for making a payment of Rs.5,000/- as compensation.
3. On being served, the Ops appeared through their counsel and resisted the complaint by filing the written version wherein various preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, cause of action, concealement of true and correct facts, locus standi etc. have been raised.
4. In reply, on merits it is submitted that the impugned bill of Rs.77,710/- payable on 09.05.2018 is perfectly on the basis of the energy consumed by the complainant. It is also further submitted that an amount of Rs.73,707/- is of arrears standing against the complainant and the amount of Rs.259/- is of a fuel surcharge and the amount of Rs.3672/- is of energy charge. The electricity bill issued to the complainant is of the electricity energy consumed by him. Since the complainant had not made payment of the several electricity bills and as such the amount of arrears has been included in the bill in question. It is further submitted that there is no deficiency on the part of OPs in rendering service to the complainant and as such the present complaint is liable to be dismissed being devoid of merits.
5. The learned counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence affidavit of the complainant as Ex. CW-1/A alongwith the documents as Ex. C-1 and closed the evidence of the complainant. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of the SDO Operation as Annexure RW-1/A alongwith the documents as Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-6 and closed the evidence of the OPs.
6. We have duly heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the documents placed on record.
7. It is the case of the complainant that electricity bill of Rs.77,710/- payable on 09.05.2018 issued by the OPs is wrong against law and facts, null and void and as such the same is liable to be set aside. It is further the case of the complainant that he made request to the OP several times to rectify the above said bill but all in vain.
8. On the other hand, it is the case of the OPs that the electricity bill in question issued to the complainant is perfectly in order and as per the electricity energy consumed by him. It is further the case of the OPs that the complainant had not deposited the amount of the several electricity bills issued to him previously. Therefore, the amount of arrears has been included in the electricity bill in question. In support of their contention, the OPs have also placed on record copies of the bills issued to the complainant and perusal of the same go to show that as per Annexure R-3 an amount of Rs.63,296/- was pending against the complainant as arrears and as per Annexure R-2, an amount of Rs.68,134/- was to be paid as arrears and as per Annexure R-1 an amount of Rs.73,708/- was to be paid as arrears by the complainant.
9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the OPs have established that the electricity bills have been issued to the complainant as per the electricity consumed by him and as per the meter reading. In case the complainant doubts the correctness of the electricity meter in that eventuality he should have submitted an application before the OPs for getting the electricity meter checked in the laboratory of the OPs.
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of OPs in rendering service to him. The present complaint is accordingly dismissed with no order to cost. A copy of this order be furnished to both the parties free of cost as provided in the rules. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum: Dt. 28.02.2020
(Jasvinder Singh) (Raghbir Singh) Member President DCDRF, Fatehabad.
