BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 4 of 2018
Date of Institution : 1.1.2018
Date of Decision : 27.3.2018
Brij Lal, aged 69 years son of Shri Surja Ram, resident of village Godikan Tehsil Dabwali District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1 Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Sub Urban Division T-31, Mandi Dabwali, District Sirsa.
2 Executive Engineer, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitram Nigam Ltd., Dabwali.
3. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., through Managing Director, Hisar.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI R.L. AHUJA……………… PRESIDENT
SHRI MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE……MEMBER.
Present: Sh.V.K. Beniwal, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. K.K. Relan, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
In brief, the case of complainant is that complainant is a farmer and was having a domestic electricity connection No.SD22-1023-X at his house in village Godikan, as such he is consumer of the opposite parties. The complainant was paying the bills of the electricity regularly up to 26.6.2017. On 26.6.2017 he received a bill of Rs.292/- but he deposited an amount of Rs.300/- on the same day. Thereafter on 27.11.2017, the complainant received bill of Rs.55,520/- which was for a huge amount and as such complainant did not deposit the same. Then on 25.12.2017, a new bill of Rs.58,791/- was received which was also wrong and as such complainant did not deposit the amount of that bill. It is further averred that due to non payment of bill, the officials of ops in the month of December removed the electricity meter of the complainant without giving any information to him. That firstly the ops sent a wrong bill to the complainant and secondly they removed the meter without any information to the complainant and in this way the ops have committed cheating and injustice with the complainant whereas the complainant is not at fault and he is not a defaulter rather the complainant has been paying the electricity bills regularly and previously no amount was outstanding against the complainant rather some amount of complainant is outstanding towards the ops. That complainant orally requested the ops to correct the wrong bill and to install the electric meter on 14.12.2017 and thereafter on several occasions but op no.1 did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed written statement in which they have taken preliminary objections regarding no cause of action, maintainability, locus standi, concealment of true and material facts and that there is no deficiency in service on the part of ops. On merits, it is submitted that the meter of the complainant was found with N-Code and D-Code, due to this the bills prepared by the computer of the nigam on the basis of average 40 units instead of actual units consumed by the complainant from 18.7.2015 to 1.10.2017. When this fact came to the notice of officials of the nigam, then account of the complainant was overhauled and sundry was prepared by the officials of the nigam vide item No.275. As per the sundry report i.e. item no.275 the account no.SD22/1023 of Brij Lal “Computer Cell regarding this account meter status shown D code from 11/2015 to 10/2017 but the meter taken reading properly. Now this account D-code set aside as per receiving record and ledger record, which amounts to Rs.51358/- plus Rs.790/- total Rs.52158/-. As per this report/ledger from the period 11/2015 to 10/2017 the bills issued to the complainant as per the average units of 40 but the reading in the meter at that time i.e. 1.10.2017 was 8986 units and at 11/2015 was 2 units, which amounts to 8984 units. The actual units consumer by the consumer was 8984 units of 28 months i.e. from 5/2015 to 10/2017 which comes 321 units. The amount was calculated of 8984 units which actually consumed by the consumer which comes to Rs.44927/- plus 10347 plus 898 total Rs. 56172/- and the consumer paid the bill or amount before the nigam for the above said period was Rs.2916/- plus Rs.1000/- plus Rs.108/- total Rs.4024/-. Hence after deducting the amount of Rs.4024/- already paid by the consumer from the actual amount of Rs.56172/-, a bill of Rs.52148/- issued to the consumer which is legal and genuine and prepared on the basis of the units consumed by the consumer but the consumer had not deposited the above said amount before the nigam. Hence the electricity connection of the consumer was disconnected by the nigam vide PDCO No. 11/3244 dated 29.12.2017. It is relevant to mention here that at the time of disconnection of the electricity connection i.e. on dated 29.12.2017 as per the PDCO no.11/3244, the reading in the meter was 10014 and defaulting amount was Rs.59842/-. The complainant is legally liable to pay this amount before the nigam without any delay and ops are legally entitled to recover this amount from the complainant as per rules and law of the department/nigam. It is clear that the complainant deposited less amount instead of the actual units consumed by him. The department/op only demanded the amount of the units consumed by the complainant. It is further submitted that previously the electricity bills issued by the nigam on the basis of average units i.e. 40 units and now the account of the complainant is overhauled and as per this report/sundry the amount of Rs. 52148/- was due against the consumer. With these averments, dismissal of complaint has been prayed for.
3. The complainant produced his affidavit Ex.C1, copies of bills Ex.C2 to Ex.C6 and copy of ration card Ex.C7. The ops produced affidavit of Sh. Mohan Lal, SDO Ex.R1, copy of ledger Ex.R2, copy of permanent disconnection order Ex.R3 and copy of sundry Ex.R4.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully.
5. The complainant in order to prove his case has furnished his affidavit Ex.C1 in which he has reiterated all the contents of his complaint. He has also furnished copies of bills Ex.C2 to Ex.C6 and copy of ration card Ex.C7. On the other hand, opposite parties have tendered affidavit of Sh. Mohan Lal, SDO as Ex.R1 in which he has reiterated the averments of the written statement filed by ops. The ops have also produced copy of ledger Ex.R2, copy of permanent disconnection order Ex.R3 and copy of sundry Ex.R4.
6. It is undisputed fact between the parties that complainant Brij Lal is consumer of the opposite parties and an electric connection has been installed in his premises which is being used by complainant against payment of bills. It is further admitted fact between the parties that the ops had been issuing the bills on average basis as a result of which the complainant had been making payment as per the bills. The perusal of the bills reveal that ‘D code’ is mentioned on the bills meaning thereby that bills were not being issued by ops qua the actual consumption of the electricity but same were being issued only on the basis of average units. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for ops has strongly contended that when this fact was brought in the notice of ops, the account of the complainant was overhauled for the period 11/2015 to 10/2017 and thereafter total sum of Rs.56,172/- was claimed qua the consumption of 8984 units whereas the complainant had deposited only Rs.4024/- and after deducting this amount, the bill for a sum of Rs.52,148/- was issued to the complainant which is legal and genuine and prepared on the basis of units consumption consumed by the consumer.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for complainant has strongly contended that it is negligence on the part of officials of the opposite parties who did not check their record and meter properly and had been issuing the bills as per minimum average basis due to ‘D code’ and there is no fault on the part of complainant and that alleged recovery is time barred.
8. No doubt, from the evidence of opposite parties, it appears that ops were negligent in issuing the bills on the average basis and had been charging on the basis of said bills and did not initiate any action to check the reading of the meter nor claimed this amount for such a long time but however, it does not mean that complainant has not used the electricity during this period. Nor, the complainant has challenged the correctness of the meter. So there does not appear any deficiency in service on the part of ops but however there appears negligence on the part of officials of the opposite parties in issuing the bills on average basis for such a long time. So, it will be in the fitness of things, if present complaint is partly allowed and ops are directed to re-examine and overhaul the account of complainant in his presence after serving a seven days prior notice to the complainant.
9. In view of the above, we partly allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to re-examine and overhaul the account of complainant in his presence after serving a seven days prior notice to the complainant and thereafter to re-assess the consumption of complainant if recovery of the same is not time barred as per provisions of Section 56(2) of Electricity Act, 2003. After arriving at net amount, the ops will issue a fresh bill to the complainant and will give opportunity to the complainant to make payment of the amount in nine monthly installments alongwith current bill. The parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. President, Dated:27.3.2018. Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
