BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 177 of 2019
Date of Institution : 11.04.2019
Date of Decision : 30.10.2019.
Smt. Krishna Devi aged about 68 years wife of Sh. Ram Sarup son of Sh. Sobh Ram, resident of village Alikan, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam through its Managing Director at Hisar.
2. Sub Divisional Officer, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, City Sub Division, Sirsa (OP) Circle, Sirsa.
..…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI R.L. AHUJA…………….. PRESIDENT
SHRI ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL…. MEMBER
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR………….. MEMBER
Present: Sh. Anjani Gupta, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. S.K. Garg, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
In brief, the case of complainant is that he is owner in possession of a residential house situated near Bhagat Singh Park, Mohalla Rajputana District Sirsa within the limits of Municipal Council, which has been purchased by complainant from its previous owners Smt. Ramesh Rani and Raj Rani vide registered sale deed No.11960 dated 4.2.2011. That an electricity connection bearing A/c No. 5441080000 was already installed inside the house premises which is still standing in the name of Tilak Ram. The said connection has also been purchased by complainant and there is an endorsement in this regard in the sale deed. It is further averred that after purchase of said house, the complainant has been using the said electricity connection and thus she is user of the same and she has been making payment of consumption charges to the ops regularly and has never been declared defaulter in making payments of the electricity bills. That averagely in routine, the complainant consumes about 200 units per month and receives the electricity bills accordingly. That on 17.4.2018, complainant received a bill bearing No.544108232358 for the period w.e.f. 15.2.2018 to 15.4.2018 vide which the ops have claimed a sum of Rs.21,846/- showing the consumption of units to be 1206 but have claimed a sum of Rs.14,180.63 as arrears. It is further averred that complainant was shocked to receive such an excessive electricity bill and immediately she contacted the op no.2 regarding issuance of wrong bill and requested him to rectify the same and to issue a fresh bill as per actual consumption/ units. The op no.2 promised that a fresh bill as per the actual consumption units shall be issued to her after rectifying the aforesaid wrong bill and complainant kept on waiting for the fresh bill and ultimately on 29.6.2018, she again received a bill bearing No.544101549955 for the period w.e.f. 15.4.2018 to 26.6.2018 vide which the ops have claimed a sum of Rs.24,781/- showing the consumption of units to be as 390 only but have claimed a sum of Rs.22,488.10 as arrears. That on receipt of said bill, the complainant again approached the op no.2 and made a request to the above effect but op no.2 instead of rectifying the bills threatened the complainant to make the payment of above said bills up to due date otherwise said amount shall be recovered by way of coercive method and connection will be disconnected and ultimately complainant was forced to deposit the amount of Rs.24,781/- with ops vide receipt dated 9.7.2018 under protest. That in this manner, the aforesaid bills issued by the ops are wrong, incorrect and not according to the units actually consumed by the complainant. It is further averred that complainant has also received another bill dated 22.8.2018 for a sum of Rs.1843/- showing consumption of units to be 354 which has also been paid by complainant vide receipt dated 30.8.2018 which proves that consumption of units by complainant is about 200 units per month only and further proves that earlier two bills are not according to the actual consumed units and may be result of fault of meter or negligence of the ops while issuing the aforesaid bills. That similarly, on 14.2.2019, the complainant received a bill bearing No.544109300526 for the period w.e.f. 13.12.2018 to 7.2.2019 vide which the ops have claimed a sum of Rs.82,725/- showing the consumption of units to be as 6156 but have claimed a sum of Rs.32,869.28 as arrears. This bill again is not according to actual consumed units as the same is showing the consumption of units to be more than 100 per day whereas actually the average consumption of units per month is only 200 units. It is further submitted that on the application of complainant, the defective meter has been changed. That complainant again requested op no.2 to rectify the bill but op no.2 flatly refused to do so rather threatened her to make payment and such act and conduct on the part of ops clearly amounts to gross negligence, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on account of which complainant has suffered unnecessary harassment, mental tension and financial loss. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that complainant was told all the accounts, but complainant does not want to understand the account and her request to waive the bill is not in the purview of their powers, as her account was in arrear of Rs.14,180.63 and bill was rightly raised as per consumption of complainant. It is further submitted that all the bills issued on the basis of actual consumption used by consumer and she was on fault by not disclosing her actual consumption as one cannot claim benefits from his own wrongs. It is further submitted that complainant lodged complaint on 20.2.2019 regarding wrong meter and on her request service job order no.50/894 dated 21.2.2019 was issued, her electric meter was replaced in the presence of complainant and her old meter was referred to M&T Lab. at the reading 33024 KWH on 22.2.2019 in the presence of her representative and further M&T Lab. Sirsa checked the said eter at sr. no.8 and found reading 33024 KWH is OK and working of meter is also OK within permissible limit. It is further submitted that all the bills are issued as per consumption of complainant and are rightly issued as per law and rules and she is in the habit of accumulation of reading perhaps with the connivance of reading staff, working of her meter and accuracy of consumption is also verified in laboratory. The complainant wants to escape from her liability to pay the genuine bills under the guise of this false complaint. Remaining contents of 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 the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
5. The complainant in order to prove her complaint has furnished her affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which she has deposed and reiterated the averments made in the complaint. She has also produced copy of receipt/ sale deed Ex.C1, copy of entry in assessment register Ex.C2 and copies of bills and receipts Ex.C3 to Ex.C15. On the other hand, ops have furnished affidavit of Sh. Ravinder Singh, SDO as Ex.RW1 and copy of report of M&T Lab as Ex.R1, copy of service job order Ex.R2 and copy of performa for billing as Ex.R3.
6. The perusal of the record reveals that complainant has filed this complaint with specific allegations that originally Tilak Ram was consumer of ops from whom complainant had purchased house and complainant is using the electric connection and paying bills. There are further allegations in the complaint that ops are issuing wrong and excessive bills to the complainant which are not according to actual consumption and complainant deposited an amount of Rs.24,781/- under protest. She has further alleged that subsequent bills are also not as per consumption and ops are threatening to pay the bills illegally and arbitrarily. The perusal of record reveals that the meter was got replaced by complainant from ops and meter was sent to M&T Lab, and same was checked in the presence of representative of complainant. But however, again there is dispute regarding consumption and bills of electricity. 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 the account of complainant in her presence or in presence of her representative.
7. In view of our above discussion, present complaint is partly allowed and we direct the opposite parties to overhaul the account of complainant in her presence or in presence of her representative after serving a seven days prior notice to the complainant and thereafter reassess the consumption of units and make demand of consumption charges etc. if any amount is found payable by complainant 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, she 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:30.10.2019. Member Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
