Haryana

StateCommission

A/440/2015

FAKIR CHAND - Complainant(s)

Versus

DHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

B.S.MITTAL

05 Nov 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      440 of 2015

Date of Institution:      13.05.2015

Date of Decision :       05.11.2015

 

Fakir Chand s/o Sh. Thakar Ram, Resident of Village Khaja Khera, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

 

1.      Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, through its Managing Director at Hisar.

2.      Executive Engineer, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Op Sub Urban Division, Sirsa, District Sirsa.

3.      Sub Divisional Officer, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Op Jiwan Nagar, Sub Division, District Sirsa.

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                         

Present:               Shri B.S. Mittal, Advocate for appellant.

Shri Baljinder Singh, Advocate with Shri Raju Ram, ALM, for respondents.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

The un-successful complainant has come up in appeal against the order dated March 26^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sirsa (for short ‘the District Forum’) whereby complaint was dismissed.

2.      Fakir Chand-complainant/appellant, obtained electric connection of his house bearing No.SJ01/0611. He was paying the bills regularly. He received bill No.178 dated 19.02.2013 (Exhibit C-2) for Rs.41,872/- showing the units consumed 6220. Hence, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed before the District Forum.

3.      The Opposite Parties/ Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (for short ‘DHBVNL’) appeared and contested the complaint by filing reply. It was stated that the meter of the complainant was dead stop, therefore, Meter Change Order (MCO) was issued on December 7^th, 2012 and the reading shown at the time of removal of the meter was added to the current consumption shown in the new meter. Thus, justifying the impugned bill, they prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      It is not disputed that the complainant is having connection of 1.00 K.W. load and has been issued bills on average basis from 15.05.2012 to 15.11.2012 of 120 units bimonthly.  The meter was dead stop and average consumption preceding one year was taken into consideration while charging average, therefore, the question of adding the reading of old meter in the impugned bill does not arise.

5.      There is another aspect that even after change of meter, the bills issued under No.00172 from February 2014 to December, 2014, the pattern of consumption remains the same as was charged on average basis. So, it is abundantly established on the record that wrong bill was issued by the opposite parties and as such the same cannot sustain.

6.      In view of the above, the appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and by allowing the complaint, the impugned bill is set aside.

Announced 05.11.2015

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL