Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/366/2019

Parmod Bharti - Complainant(s)

Versus

DHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

Rajbir Singh

12 Dec 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,FATEHABAD.

                                                           Complaint No.:366 of 2019.

                                                           Date of Instt.: 29.08.2019.

                                                           Date of Decision: 12.12.2023.

 

Parmod Bharti son of Chander Bhan son of Munshi Ram resident of village Dharnia Tehsil & District Fatehabad.

 

                                                                             …Complainant.

                             Versus

 

1. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Fatehabad through its Executive Engineer, Operation Divison.
2. Sub Divisional Officer, Operation Sub Division (City), Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Fatehabad.    
3. Junior Engineer 1^st Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Badopal Tehsil & District Fatehabad.

 

                                                                             …Opposite parties.

 

             Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

 

BEFORE:             Sh.Rajbir Singh, President.

                             Smt. Harisha Mehta, Presiding Member.

                             Dr.K.S.Nirania, Member

 

Argued by:            Sh.Rajbir Singh, Adv. for the complainant.

                             Sh.Kuldeep Sharma, Adv. for the Ops.

 

ORDER:

Sh.RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT

                            

1.                          The complainant has filed this complaint against the    OPs with the averments that there is an electric connection bearing account No.DD1D-0560-A at village Dharnia in the name of Chander Bhan who died on 13.01.2019 and after his death the complainant has been using the said connection; that the sanctioned load of the electricity connection is 0.5 KW; that the complainant has also got installed solar energy system in his house; that the Ops by way of bill of August, 2018 have demanded Rs.7654/- for consuming  136 units and in this bill the connected load has been shown as 8.4 KW;  that there after the Ops have also issued bill payable on 13.12.2018 for a sum of Rs.48,693/- by showing the consumed units 5416 in two months; that thereafter the Ops issued a bill for a sum of Rs.18,169/- followed by two another bills payable on 09.04.2019 and 12.06.2019 for a sum of Rs.32513/- and 37435/-  without providing any detail; that the Ops further issued a bill of Rs.43324/- to be payable on 13.08.2019 wrongly and illegally and without any basis; that the complainant requested the Ops to treat the impugned bills as null and void but to no effect. The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part.

 2.                         The OPs appeared and filed their joint reply contesting the complaint of the complainant on various grounds. It has been submitted that the complainant has not come to the court with clean hands and he has neither locus standi nor cause of action to file the present complaint, therefore, the present compliant is not maintainable. It has been further submitted that on 06.01.2015, the premises of Chander Bhan was checked by the officials of the Nigam and during checking the connected load was found as 8.4 KW as per LL-1 whereas the sanctioned load was 0.5 KW; that the bill of Rs.7654/- was sent on average basis which is correct as per the equipment installed in the house of the complainant; that the bill payable on 13.12.2018 for amount of Rs.48693/- being arrear in the bill has been sent correctly and the consumed units for two months have been shown as 5416/-; that there no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of replying Ops. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

3                           The complainant in evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C11 whereas the Ops have tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A with document Annexure R1.

4.                          Learned counsel for the parties have been heard at length and the case file has been perused meticulously.

5.                          The complainant has pleaded that the Ops have wrongly and illegally sent the bills for the units which have not been consumed by him as the sanctioned load is only 0.5 bill and despite several requests, the Ops have not treated the said impugned bills as null and void.                             

6.                          Per contra, learned counsel for the Ops has argued that though the sanctioned load was 0.5 KW but during checking the connected load was found 8.4 KW therefore, the Nigam has sent the bills as per the rules and regulations of the Nigam keeping in view the connected load.

7.                          In order to resolve the controversy in hand checking report LL-1 prepared by the officials of the Nigam is very vital and crucial document. In this very document it has been clearly mentioned that during checking the connected load was found as 8.4 KW and in this very document the detail of the load from Sr. No.1 to Sr.No.14 has also been mentioned. The checking team consisting of four officials/Officers of Nigam has clearly mentioned that at the time of checking Munshi Ram was present at home. Learned counsel for the Ops has also drawn the attention of this Commission towards Annexure R1 i.e. ledger of the meter account related to present matter. In this very document the connected load has also been shown as 8.4 KW.  Had it been so, it was for the complainant to counter the pleas made by the Ops in their pleadings by tendering cogent and reliable evidence that the connected load was no 8.4 KW and the  report LL-1 has been prepared on wrong facts by mentioning the wrong details of electricity equipments. It is a settled principle of law that the person who raises plea of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against any person/party, the burden always lies with the person who raised that plea, therefore without any proof of deficiency, the opposite parties cannot be held responsible for any deficiency in service but in the present case the complainant has not produced the best evidence in support of his contentions. Moreover, learned counsel for the Ops has also produced on the case file relevant instructions to show that the present case is a clear cut case of unauthorized use of energy as mentioned instruction No.8.1 and in this instruction in para No.13 it has been mentioned as under:

KW: Connected load actually found at the time of inspecting/checking in Kilowatts or the sanctioned load or maximum load recorded during last 12 months whichever is earlier.

In case the load survey confirms the abnormal increase in the MDI due to magnetic field then the abnormal demand recorded under the influence of magnet may not be considered. However, maximum capacity of individual transformer may be considered.         

The relevant instruction clearly shows that the complainant was involved in unauthorized use of electricity as the connected load was more than the sanctioned load.            

8.                          On the basis of above mentioned discussion, we are of the considered opinion that there was no deficiency in service at all or any unfair trade practice, on the part of any of the Ops, as alleged, so as to make any of them liable to any extent in this matter. Hence, the complaint is dismissed in view of the facts and circumstances stated above.  All the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost as per rules.  This order be uploaded, forthwith, on the website of this Commission as per rules for the perusal of the parties. File be consigned to record room, as per rules, after due compliance.

Announced in open Commission.                                                            Dated: 12.12.2023

 

 

                                                                                                        

          (K.S.Nirania)                    (Harisha Mehta)         (Rajbir Singh)                             Member                               Member                              President