Haryana

StateCommission

A/841/2016

GURDEV SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

DHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

B.S.MITTAL

11 Nov 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  : 841 of 2016

Date of Institution: 15.09.2016

Date of Decision : 11.11.2016

 

 

Gurdev Singh, aged 67 years son of Shri Sohan Singh, resident of village Phulo, Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa

 

                                      Appellant-Complainant

 Versus

 

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

2.      Executive Enginner, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. OP Sub Urabn Division, Dabwali, Distt. Sirsa

3.      Sub Divisional Officer, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., OP Sub Urban Sub Division, Dabwali, Distt. Sirsa

                                     

                                      Respondents-Opposite parties

 

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Argued by:          Sh. B.S. Mittal, Advocate for the appellant

Ms. Alka Joshi, Advocate for the respondents.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

Gurdev Singh-complainant is in appeal against the order dated 11.08.2016 passed in Consumer Complaint No. 195 of 2015 vide which the complaint was dismissed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sirsa (in short, ‘District Forum’).

2.      The Complainant filed complaint with allegations that he has a domestic electricity connection bearing No. SD18/1114 and has been paying the bills regularly.  He has connected load of 0.500 KW.  However, suddenly he received a bill No. 03896 dated 25.09.2015 for the period 23.07.2015 to 25.09.2015 showing old reading as ‘3’ and new reading as ‘7508’,  units consumed as ‘7505’ and total bill of Rs.64,093/-.  Complaint has sought setting aside of the bill. 

3.      Opposite parties contested the complaint stating that in the bill issued for the month of September, 2012 the meter was shown as ‘Z’ code (means defective) and thereafter he was issued minimum monthly charges bill from September, 2012 to July, 2015.  However during the meter reading, the meter had the reading of 7508.  The bill was issued giving benefit of the total payment made on the basis of minimum monthly charges bills paid since July, 2012.  The net amount payable was Rs.64093/- without any surcharge or penalty.  Complainant moved application dated 14.10.2015 and the meter was again checked and showed reading as 7954 as on 08.12.2015. Opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.      The District Forum after hearing parties dismissed the complaint.

5.      We have perused the original record which has been brought by the Sub-Divisional Officer concerned and heard parties.

6.      It is not disputed that the bills issued from September, 2012 till September, 2015 were on the basis of minimum monthly charges showing against status of meter as ‘Z’ .  The bill in dispute was issued on the basis of actual reading as the meter was found in order.  The complainant has already been given the benefit of amount paid on the basis of minimum charges.  Therefore, there is no deficiency on the basis of opposite parties.  However, as prayed by the complainant that he is a poor person, opposite parties are directed to recover the amount in installments over a period of 3 years without adding any surcharge/penalty or interest.

7.      The appeal is accordingly disposed of and the impugned order is modified in the manner indicated above.

 

 

Announced 11.11.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

DK