BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.

                                                          Consumer Complaint no. 145 of 2016                                                                          

                                                         Date of Institution         :    03.06.2016                                                                        

                                                         Date of  Decision  :    25.1.2017

Gurnek Singh, aged 62 years son of Shri Gurbachan Singh (Sant Nagar Wale), resident of Dhani Hundalwali, village Amritsar Kalan, Tehsil Ellenabad, 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 Sub Urban Division, Sirsa, District, Sirsa.

3. Sub Divisional Officer, Dakshini Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., OP Sub  Division, Ellenabad, 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. J.B.L. Garg, Advocate for the complainant.

         Sh. K.K. Relan, Advocate for the opposite parties.

ORDER

                                In brief, case of the complainant is that he is beneficiary of electricity connection bearing No.SE46-0389 installed in the house which he has purchased from one Basant Singh son of Gurmukh Singh. The grievance of the complainant is that as per bill No.5123 dated 27.3.2014, he was charged by ops for 87 units showing Rs.916/- in excess in his account. But thereafter, vide bill No.3215 dated 24.1.2015, ops demanded Rs.71,493.06/- as arrears alongwith Rs.3996/- as current charges. On the assurance of ops, he deposited Rs.30,000/- on 24.3.2015. Thereafter, ops issued one another bill No.1863 dated 23.5.2016 of Rs.87,504.72/- as arrears and Rs.5163.25/- for current consumption charges and demanded total sum of Rs.94,192/- and ops did not hear his genuine request for correcting the bill. Hence, this complaint seeking the reliefs as detailed in relief clause.

2.                On notice, ops appeared and replied that as per detail (Ex.R2) enclosed with their written version from Sr. No.1 to 26, the complainant deposited amount on the basis of average units. Wrong average billing as per consumption recorded by the meter, hence the account was overhauled from July, 2010 to September 2014 and 12672 units were found to have been consumed by complainant from July, 2010 to September, 2014 but he paid for 4410 units. So as per the calculation of actual consumption which is 12672 units minus 4410 units already paid, difference of units comes to 8262 for which he has been rightly charged and complainant is liable to pay the amount in question.

3.                By way of evidence, complainant produced his affidavit Ex.C1, copies of bills Ex. C2 to Ex.C4 and copy of sale deed Ex.C5. On the other hand, ops produced affidavit of SDO Ex.R1 and bill detail Ex.R2.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.

5.                The only question to decide in the present complaint is whether the ops charged the complainant rightly or not and their demand is liable to be quashed or not? On the basis of record produced by both sides, it is clear that firstly ops accepted the billing amount on the basis of units as detailed in first part of Ex.R2 and during the period from 20.4.2010 to 20.8.2014 they charged the complainant for 4410 units whereas per ops actual consumption of the meter was 12672 units and they now charged the complainant for the balance consumption of 8262 units. It is clear from the record that ops firstly wrongly charged the complainant and for this only complainant cannot be held responsible for payment on average basis against the actual consumption of meter reading. Further it is not case of the complainant that meter was not showing reading of 12672 as alleged by ops. For wrongly charging and accepting the payment on average basis, ops are equally liable. In our view, ops are entitled to charge the energy charges on the basis of reading recorded by meter i.e. 12672 units but due to their deficiency in service by issuing bills and accepting payment on average basis, they are not entitled for recovery of surcharge till the date when they overhauled the account and raised demand of balance amount. Accordingly, present complaint is accepted only to the extent that ops are not liable for any surcharge till the date of overhauling the account of complainant.

6.                Thus, in view of our above discussion, the present complaint is hereby partly accepted with the direction to the ops to raise demand on the basis of meter reading i.e. 12672 minus 4410 units i.e. for 8262 units and not to include the surcharge amount till the date of overhauling account of complainant. This order should be complied by the ops within a period of two months from today. 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:25.1.2017.                                                  District Consumer Disputes

                                                Member                Redressal Forum, Sirsa.