BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 137 of 2017
Date of Institution : 14.6.2017
Date of Decision : 28.02.2018
Rai Singh, aged 58 years, son of Shri Ramjas son of Chandan Ram, resident of village Bani, Tehsil Rania District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Dakshini Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., through its Managing Director at Hisar.
2. Executive Engineer, Dakshini Haryana Bijli Vitram Nigam Ltd., ‘OP’, Sub Urban Division, Sirsa.
3 Sub Divisional Officer, Dakshini Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., ‘OP’, Jiwan Nagar Sub Division Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
..…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.JBL Garg, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. M.S. Gill, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
In brief, the case of complainant is that late father of complainant namely Shri Ramjas son of Shri Chandan Ram was the consumer of the opposite parties vide domestic electric connection bearing No.SJ-16/1945 DS, which is installed at the residential premises, situated at village Bani, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa. Shri Ramjas has since died and after his death, the complainant being his son and legal heir is living in the said house and has been making use of the above electric connection and he has been making payment of consumption charges to the ops regularly and completely. Thus, the complainant is the user and bonafide consumer of the ops in respect of above electric connection. The meter of the said connection is installed outside the premises of the complainant i.e. on the electric pole. It is further averred that complainant was served with a bill no.01962 dated 26.3.2017 with old reading as 11117 and new reading as 11781 i.e. for 664 units, for which the ops claimed a sum of Rs.4,124-00 as consumption charges with Rs.122/- as surcharge in case of late payment. The last date for payment of this bill was 12.4.2017. The complainant made payment of this bill on 12.4.2017. On 28.3.2017, the meter of the above electric connection was burnt and on the same day, the complainant reported the same to the op no.3, whereupon, on 29.3.2017, the defective burnt meter was removed and in its place, new meter was got installed by the ops. That however, on 28.3.2017 itself i.e. the date when the complainant reported the burning of the meter of above connection to the op no.3, the op no.3 sent a memo no.495 dated 28.3.2017 to the complainant whereby intimating that the JE of the Nigam while replacing the meter has reported that the reading shown by the meter is 41333, whereas the bill up to 11781 units has been sent to the complainant and thereby demanded a sum of Rs.240849/- from the complainant for 29552 units. The complainant was highly surprised and shocked to receive this memo and on coming to know of the alleged reading shown by the meter and reported by the JE of the nigam on 28.3.2017. It is relevant to mention here that on 28.3.2017 the complainant had reported the burning of meter to op no.3, and the new meter was installed on 29.3.2017, so it was/is quite surprising as to how on 28.3.2017, the reading from the old burnt meter was extracted by the JE. Moreover, the alleged reading is not based on any report given by the laboratory of the Nigam. The meter installed at the premises of the complainant had burnt and only the Laboratory could extract the reading recorded by the meter, but in this case, no report of laboratory has been sought by the ops. So, the impugned memo dated 28.3.2017 is based on mere conjectures, surmises, assumptions and presumptions and is not based on any basis. So, the impugned memo is liable to be withdrawn and set-aside. In this manner, the demand of the op no.3 for the sum of Rs.2,40,849/- as aforesaid, is totally wrong, incorrect, unjust, improper and not as per actual and factual position prevailing at the spot. It is further averred that the complainant on receipt of impugned memo, approached the ops no.2 and 3 and requested them to withdraw the impugned memo, but they did not pay any heed to the same and have refused to do so. The ops threatened that in case the payment of disputed amount of Rs.2,40,849/- is not made, then the electric connection of the complainant will be disconnected. The ops by their act and conduct have committed gross deficiency in service towards the complainant and thereby have put the complainant to suffer unnecessary harassment, hardship, fatigue, inconvenience coupled with mental tension, pain, agony etc. As such the complainant is also entitled to a compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the ops on these counts and the ops be directed to withdraw the impugned memo and also to pay litigation expenses. 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, and jurisdiction and that complainant has concealed the true and material facts from the Forum and has not come with clean hands as complainant himself caused loss to Nigam by malafide intention and dishonest use of electricity under the provisions of Electricity Act and complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant was not making up to date consumption charges, infact complainant dishonestly using electricity and accumulated the units of electricity consumed by him and later on burnt down his electricity meter which was got burnt by complainant himself to escape himself from making of payment of up to date consumption of energy. It is further submitted that bill no.1962 dated 26.3.2017 was issued to complainant for lesser units while actually complainant accumulated the units consumed. Moreover it is submitted that the electricity meter of consumer removed from the spot by LL1 no.15/638 dated 29.3.2017. After removal of meter of the complainant, it was sent to M&T lab for joint checking vide memo No.326/492 dated 29.6.2017 and copy of this M&T lab report is attached herewith. It is also relevant to mention here that the consumer did not appear in the lab for joint checking after properly being informed about this. It is also worthwhile to mention here that electricity meter of consumer was previously 2-3 times replaced by the answering ops with the history of burnt meter. MCO orders of these installations are attached herewith which shows the previous act and conduct of the consumer. The complainant is legally bound to make payment of Rs.2,40,849/- to the Nigam and the answering ops are duty bound to recover this amount by adopting proper legal methods.
4. The parties then led their respective evidence. The complainant produced his affidavit Ex.C1, copy of memo No.495 dated 28.3.2017 Ex.C2, copies of electricity bills Ex.C3 to Ex.C8 and copies of receipts Ex.C9 to Ex.C16. On the other hand, ops produced affidavit of Sh. Shankar Panwar, SDO Ex.RW1/A, copies of bills Ex.R1, Ex.R2, copy of application of complainant for change of meter Ex.R3 alongwith details Ex.R4, copy of meter change order Ex.R5, copy of LL-1 Ex.R6, copies of notices dated 25.5.2017, 5.6.2017 and 28.6.2017 for inspection of the meter in the laboratory Ex.R7 to Ex.R9, copy of joint checking report Ex.R10, copy of application of complainant for change of meter Ex.R11, copy of report Ex.R13, copy of application Ex.R14, copy of meter change order Ex.R16, copy of comparison units detail Ex.R17, copy of memo dated 28.3.2017 Ex.R18, copy of letter Ex.R19 and copy of report Ex.R20.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully.
6. The perusal of the complaint reveals that the opposite party no.3 sent a memo no.495 dated 28.3.2017 to the complainant, copy of which is Ex.C2 and whereby demand of Rs.2,40,849/- was made by the opposite parties from the complainant and it was stated in the said memo that complainant moved an application for replacement of the meter and as per report given by Junior Engineer, reading of 41333 units has been found but the bill up to 11781 units has already been charged and as per reading of the meter, there is difference of 29552 units (41333-11781) and so the amount of Rs.240849/- is to be paid by the complainant. It is quite clear that after moving an undated application (Ex.R3) by the complainant for replacement of the meter due to burning of the same the ops issued the said memo on the basis of report dated 28.3.2017 of ALM to the complainant. The plea of the opposite parties is that complainant was not paying upto date consumption charges and infact he was using electricity dishonestly and accumulated the units of electricity consumed by him and later on burnt down his electricity meter to escape himself from making payment of energy charges. Learned counsel for ops during the course of arguments has also contended that the consumer adopted same modus-operandi of burning the meter intentionally as he adopted in the month of February, 2011 and again in August, 2013 and reiterated that the consumer is a dishonest person and after accumulation of the units, reported for change of burnt meter but to prove this allegation no cogent and convincing evidence has been placed on record by the opposite parties. So, the plea of learned counsel for ops in this regard is not admissible.
7. Further, the perusal of the record reveals that after removal of the meter of complainant, it was sent to the M&T Laboratory, Sirsa for testing in the laboratory. Before testing, a letter dated 25.5.2017 (copy Ex.R7) was issued to the complainant informing the date of inspection of meter as 31.5.2017, so that meter may be checked in his presence but he refused to receive the said letter and on 31.5.2017 he failed to appear at the fixed time. Again letter dated 5.6.2017 (copy Ex.R8) fixing therein date for checking of the meter in the presence of consumer as 14.6.2017 was issued to the complainant but again the complainant refused to receive the notice and did not present himself for testing of the meter in his presence. Again third notice dated 28.6.2017 (copy Ex.R9) was issued to the complainant fixing therein date for checking of electric meter as 29.6.2017 was handed over to the addressee which was accepted but refused to sign as an acknowledgment thereof. In view of this, we are of the opinion that complainant avoided to be present before the M&T Lab. for inspection of the meter as per request of the authorities and it indicates his unclean intention.
8. In the meter checking report conducted by M&T Laboratory, Sirsa Ex.R10, the reading of the meter has been shown as 41356.4 and seals have been found intact and it is mentioned in the report that after opening the body of meter, there is no abnormality found in the meter. Hence, it is evidently clear that accumulation of consumed units was found there. Further, from the copy of letter Ex.R19 placed on record by the ops it is evident that the ops took action against the concerned meter reader who was found guilty for having connivance with the complainant for accumulation of meter readings i.e. consumed units. This fact has been confirmed vide letter dated 17.4.2017 (copy Ex.R19) of Incharge HESL, Jiwan Nagar written to Sub Divisional Officer, Op S/Division, Jiwan Nagar. Hence, it is established that department has accepted misconduct on the part of his official but the complainant can not as well escape from his liability for payment of consumed units. Though, the opposite parties have placed on file consumption detail of complainant from May, 2012 to May, 2017 under the signatures of SDO ‘Op’ S/Divn, DHBVN, Jiwan Nagar but the department has failed to keep a check on the consumer as well as its official. Hence, awakening of ops at the fag end after reporting of matter by the consumer himself for change of burnt meter, action of the opposite parties for charging for accumulated units at higher rates is not justified. It has also been observed from the bills Ex.R1 which is for the month of March, 2017 and Ex.R2 which is for the month of May, 2017 that ops have charged MMC whereas the benefits of charging of MMC may be passed on to the consumer as per rules and regulations of the DHBVN under Electricity Act.
9. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we partly allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to overhaul the account of the complainant and to charge applicable rate of units from time to time and not to charge at higher rate of Rs.6.75/- per unit on difference of 29952 units after spreading the accumulated units over the period of two years back from 29.3.2015 to 28.3.2017. We also direct the opposite parties to consider the amount of MMC already charged to the complainant as mentioned above. We also direct the opposite parties to issue fresh demand after doing the needful as mentioned above and considering the amount which has already been deposited by the complainant as per interim orders of this Forum and as per consumption up to date. The ops are directed to comply with this order jointly and severally within a period of 45 days from this order, failing which benefit of remission of Rs.100/- per day will be passed on to the complainant. Further the complainant is directed to pay the difference if any as per fresh demand mentioned above within next 15 days after receipt of fresh demand notice. It is made clear that the complainant will be entitled to interest @7% per annum on the excess deposited amount by him, if any found after overhauling of his account. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, 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 after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:28.2.2018. Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
