Haryana

Charkhi Dadri

cc/42/2020

Tara Chand - Complainant(s)

Versus

DHBVN - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Sanjeev Godara

13 Aug 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHARKHI DADRI.

                              

                                                                    Complaint No.: 42 of 2020.

                                                                                    Date of Institution: 22.06.2020.

                                                                                    Date of Decision: 13.08.2024.

 

Tara Chand son of Sohan Ram Resident of village Chhappar, Tehsil & District Charkhi Dadri (Haryana)

 

                                                                                                ….Complainant.

 

                                                Versus.

1. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam having its Head Office at Vidhyut Nagar, Hisar through its Managing Director.
2. The Executive Engineer, Sub Urban Division, DHBVN, Charkhi Dadri.
3. The Sub Divisional Officer, ‘Operation’  Sub Division, DHBVN, Atela, Tehsil & District Charkhi Dadri

            …...OPs.

                        COMPLAINT UNDER  THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,

 

Sitting: -         Hon’ble Shri Manjit Singh Naryal, President,

                        Hon’ble Shri Dharam Pal Rauhilla, Member,

 

Present:          Shri Parveen Takshak, Adv. for the complainant.  

Shri Kulwant Singh, Advocate for OPs.

 

 

O R D E R

1.                     The case of the complainant in brief, is that he is having an electricity connection bearing No.CH1D-0061A, hence he is consumer qua OPs. It is averred that complainant had paid the last electricity bill of Rs. 1342/- for 270 consumed units from 1852 to 2122 units as per bill dated 21.01.2020. The complainant alleged that the respondents have issued a bill No.00990 dated 21.05.2020 for Rs.63,660/- for 2374 consumed units. The complainant further alleged that since nothing was due towards his account, the complainant visited the office of OPs many times and requested to rectify the same but of no avail. Also no action was taken on issuance of a legal notice dated 04.06.2020. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs and as such, he had to file the present complaint.

2.                     OPs on appearance filed written statement stating that the electricity bill was issued as per actual consumed units. It is further submitted that the complainant was paying bills on average basis because the meter of the complainant was burnt and the same was changed on 18.04.2020. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs. 

3.                     To prove its complaint, the counsel for complainant has tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant as Ex. CW1/A and documents Ex. C-1 to Ex.C-4 and closed the evidence vide order dt. 08.06.2022

4.               On the other hand, the counsel for the OPs have filed affidavit Ex.RW1/A and tendered documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R5 and closed the evidence vide order dt. 18.04.2023.

5.                     We have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties.  All the documents have been perused very carefully and minutely.

6.                     After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and having gone through the material available on record, we are of the considered view that the complaint of the complainant deserve acceptance as there is deficiency in service on the part of respondents.  It is admitted fact that electricity connection bearing No. No.CH1D-0061A was in the name of the complainant and the same has been disconnected. The said meter was burnt and replaced. Based on meter readings recorded in new meter and burnt meter, the bill was raised for Rs.63,660/- vide bill No.00990 dated 21.05.2020 for 2374 units. The said bill has arrears for Rs.45, 688.88. It means bills of previous period were also not paid. The period of the arrear amount has not been mentioned in the bill. Hence, it is not possible to ascertain the period of arrear. However, to resolve the issue, it would be appropriate of calculate average units per billing cycle based on previous consumption of units from March 2019 to November 2019 which are as under:-

Bill for the month	Units consumed
March 2019	65
May 2019	67
July 2019	93
September 2019	96
November 2019	991
January 2020	270
Total	1582

And by dividing this total six bill unit consumed 1582 with six bills, the average comes to 263 units per billing cycle. 

The OPs have taken the stand in the written statement that the meter of the complainant was found burnt which was changed vide MCO dated 18.4.2020 but  there is no checking report on file to prove that the meter of the complainant was found burnt. There is also no evidence in whose presence the checking was made. It was the duty of the respondents to produce the checking report to prove their version but they have miserably failed to do so with the reason best known to them. So, the presumption must be drawn against the OPs and in favour of complainant.  Therefore, the bill issued by the respondents amounting to Rs.63660/- is hereby set aside. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, the complaint of the complainant is allowed with costs and the respondents are directed: -

1. To recover the  unpaid bills @ 263 units per billing cycle  the disputed bill amount from the complainant.
2. To overhaul the account of the complainant and to adjust the amount, if any, deposited by the complainant.
3. To pay  Rs.3,000/- towards compensation for harassment and mental agony and Rs. 3,000/- towards cost of litigation

                        The compliance of the order shall be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.   Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.