DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NARNAUL
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.114 of 2011
DATE OF INSTITUTION:- 24.03.2011
DATE OF ORDER:- 19.03.2015
Amar Singh son of Shri Teda Ram, Caste Saini, Resident of Rewari Road, Narnaul, Tehsil Narnaul, District Mahendergarh (Haryana)
……………COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
- Dakshini Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. through Chairman, Narnaul
- S.D.O., Dakshini Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Narnaul
- XEN, Dakshini Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Narnaul, Tehsil Narnaul, District Mahendergarh
………….. OPPOSITE PARTIES
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT
BEFORE :- Rajesh Jindal, President
Smt. Usha Yadav, Member
L.K. Nandwani, Member
Present:- Shri K. C. Saini, Advocate for the complainant.
Shri D. R. Yadav, Advocate for the opposite parties
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
According to the complaint, brief facts are that the complainant is having an electricity connection bearing new account No.C-131-0002 (old account No.A-1350) and its connection load is 10 H.P. The complainant has alleged that in July 2010 his electricity meter became dead stop and same was replaced with new one in February 2011. The opposite parties have charged the bills from July 2010 to February 2011 on average basis from the complainant. The complainant has averred that prior to it, the opposite parties have issued bill for the month of June 2010 of 602 units, bill for the month of May 2010 of 601 units, bill for the month of April 2010 of 599 units, bill for the month of March 2010 of 602 units and bill for the month of February 2010 of 526 units and same were deposited by him. In lieu of aforesaid bills, the opposite parties had to issue the bills for the period from July 2010 to November 2010 on the basis of average, but opposite parties have issued bill No.2 dated 09.02.2011 for an amount of Rs.14518/- on average basis of 1000 units, while it should have been issued on the basis of 600 units per month. On the assurance given by the opposite parties to adjust the excess amount in future bills, the complainant deposited bill No.2 dated 09.02.2011 for Rs.14310/- with the opposite parties on 15.02.2011. The complainant deposited the bill for Rs.1388/- on 15.03.2011 with the opposite parties and as such no amount is outstanding against the complainant of the opposite parties. The opposite parties to harass the complainant have issued notice No.4347 dated 11.03.2011 for Rs.17480/-. The complainant has averred that notice No.4347 dated 11.03.2011 and bill No.2 dated 09.02.2011 being null and void are liable to be set-aside. The complainant has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to refund Rs.14310/-, deposited vide bill dated 09.02.2011, with interest and also prayed for setting-aside impugned notice No.4347 dated 11.03.2011 and bill No.2 dated 09.02.2011, besides claiming compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and harassment.
2. The opposite parties filed their joint reply stating, inter-alia, therein that the complainant’s electricity connection falls under City Feeder, therefore, the audit party of Internal Audit Department vide its Half Margin No.99/1 has rightly levied the surcharge of Rs.17,480/- for the period from July 2010 to October 2010 in the account of the complainant because the complainant is doing the work of selling water through the said connection, while his electricity connection is for agriculture purpose. The complainant was rightly issued the bill on the basis of 1000 units per month by the opposite parties. Further, notice No.4347 dated 11.03.2011 for Rs.17,480/- was rightly issued to the complainant as per rules of the Nigam. In the end, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed with special costs.
3. In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record his own supporting affidavit Annexure C-1, copies of various bills from Annexures C-2 to C-16 and copy of notice No.4347 dated 11.03.2011 Annexure C-17.
4. In reply thereto, the opposite parties have placed on record supporting affidavit of their A.G.M./ S.D.O. Mr. Vijay Pal Annexure R-1, copy of Half Margin No.99/1 Annexure R-2 and copy of notice No.4347 dated 11.03.2011 Annexure R-3.
5. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
6. Admittedly, the electricity meter of the complainant remained out of order from July 2010 to October 2010 and the electricity bills on average basis for 1000 units for each month were issued by the opposite parties to the complainant. The complainant paid Rs.4280/- for each bill issued for the months of July, August, September and October 2010. Despite the payment of said bills, the opposite parties have levied the penalty of Rs.17,480/- on the basis of audit report Annexure R-2.
7. Learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the penalty levied by the opposite parties against the complainant is absolutely wrong and illegal. In support of his contention, he referred the previous electricity bills and also the bills issued after the period in dispute and he stressed that the said bills show the consumption of electricity below 1000 units. He submitted that the opposite parties have already charged for 1000 units for each month during the disputed period; hence the opposite parties have no right to levy the penalty against the complainant.
8. Learned counsel for the opposite parties could not rebut the said contention of the complainant regarding the consumption of units of electricity by the complainant. He further reiterated the contents of the reply.
9. Taking into account the said facts of the case, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the opposite parties to over-haul the account of the complainant for the disputed period on the basis of six months consumption of electricity. No order as to cost.
Announced:-
19.03.2015
(Smt. Usha Yadav) (L. K. Nandwani) (Rajesh Jindal)
Member Member President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Narnaul
