BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 188 of 2016
Date of Institution : 03.08.2016
Date of Decision : 09.02.2017
Bikar Singh, aged 52 years son of Shri Bhura Singh, resident of village Rori, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus
1. Dakshini Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., through its Managing Director at Hisar.
2. Executive Engineer, Dakshini Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., ‘OP’, City Division, Sirsa.
3. Sub Divisional Officer, Dakshini Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., ‘OP’ Sub Division, Kalanwali, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA…………………PRESIDENT
SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL……MEMBER.
Present: Sh. H.S. Aulakh, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. K.K. Relan, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
Brief facts arising out of present complaint are that complainant is a consumer of the ops vide domestic electricity connection No. T32-SK10-1015 and the meter installed in the premises of complainant was running correctly but ops at their own changed the meter in January, 2016 and issued a bill bearing No.03653 on 24.4.2016 for 203 units claiming Rs.1247/- whereas the actual consumption of complainant was 145 units. Thereafter, ops served another bill No.3659 dated 25.6.2016 for 571 units claiming Rs.3693/- as consumption charges and further added sum of Rs.32,419/- as sundry charges. Ops also served a memo No.1550 dated 26.4.2016 directing the complainant to deposit the amount within seven days and failing which his connection will be disconnected. Upon this complainant visited the office of ops and requested for necessary correction in the bill and withdrawing the sundry charges but ops failed to do so. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, ops appeared and contested the case. As per the ops’ version, the previous meter of the complainant was found having D-code and the computer of the Nigam charged the complainant on average units instead of actual units consumed by the complainant. Upon this ops overhauled the account of complainant on the basis of half margin report vide book No.37 No.74 dated 4.1.2016. As per this report, during the period from 5/2013 to 11/2015 bills were issued to the complainant on average basis whereas meter was showing excess consumption. In 5/2013 meter reading was 3681 and in 11/2015 reading was 11651 and there was a difference of 7880 units and complainant paid for 2938 units on average basis. For the remaining units i.e. 4942 ops issued the disputed bill and the Nigam is entitled to recover the same.
3. By way of evidence, complainant produced his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, photocopy of half margin report Ex.C1, memo dated 26.4.2016 Ex.C2, copies of various bills Ex.C3 to Ex.C11. On the other hand, ops produced affidavit Ex.R1.
4. We have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
5. As alleged in para no.6 of the complaint, ops failed to prepare the correct and accurate consumption bills and they wrongly shown the status of old meter as D meaning defective or dead, although the meter was working properly but ops claimed the consumption charges on average basis and all of sudden complainant has been burdened with heavy amount of Rs.32419/- and being a poor person he is not able to pay the amount in question. From this, it is clear that the consumption taken by the ops for overhauling the account of complainant was correct at the relevant time and complainant has been charged previously on average basis i.e. for less consumption against the actual consumption. In our view, it was the duty of the ops’ department to issue correct bills on the basis of actual consumption but they wrongly charged the complainant on average basis for a long spell of more than two years i.e. from 5/13 to 11/2015 which amounts to deficiency in service and for this ops’ concerned employees are responsible. Moreover, there is no lab report from the ops’ side that the previous meter of the complainant was defective. However, from the internal audit half margin report which is Ex.C1, it is clear that ops charged the complainant for the balance units of 4942 and not included any surcharge for the period from 5/2013 to 11/2015. It is correct that all of sudden through disputed bill and memo ops claimed Rs.32,419/- from the complainant.
6. As a result of our above discussion, we are of the considered view that it will be justified if the complainant is facilitated to pay the disputed amount i.e. Rs.32,419/- in two equal installments without any surcharge or interest. The ops will claim the abovesaid amount in two installments with the future consumption bills of the complainant. If the complainant fails to deposit the amount in the way directed above, then ops will be entitled for the surcharge for the defaulted amount as per their rules. The present complaint stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:09.02.2017. District Consumer Disputes
Member Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
