BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.            

                                                          Consumer Complaint no. 4 of  2015                                               

                                                          Date of Institution         :    5.1.2015

                                                          Date of  Decision  :    12.1.2016

Ram Singh, L.M., Sub Urban Sub Division, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, r/o 132 KV Colony, Barnala Road, Sirsa,  Tehsil and distt.Sirsa.

                      ……Complainant.

                    Versus.

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

    Director at Hisar.

2. Executive Engineer Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Op City Division, Sirsa, District Sirsa..

3. Sub  Divisional Officer, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam,Op City Sub Division, Sirsa, Distt. Sirsa.

                                                                                    ....…Opposite parties.

                   Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

Before:        SMT.GURPREET KAUR GILL……PRESIDING MEMBER.       

                    SH.RAJIV MEHTA                       ……MEMBER.     

Present:       Complainant in person.

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

ORDER

                   In brief, complainant’s case is that he is an employee of opposite parties and is allotted a quarter in 132 KV colony, Barnala Road, Sirsa. The complainant has domestic electric connection No.ST44-0214 installed at his residential premises. He has been paying consumption charges regularly to the opposite parties.  A bill no.00560 dated 18.12.2014 for 483 units was issued to him, wherein besides the current consumption charges, a sum of Rs.595/- under Sundry Charges column has been added.  He approached to Op no.3 about the levy of said amount of Rs.595/- but OP no.3 did not give any satisfactory reply to the same and stated to deposit the same otherwise his electric connection will be disconnected and no details and reasons for claiming the said amount were given by Op no.3. The Ops have no right to effect the recovery of said amount and the same is liable to be withdrawn. Hence, the present complaint  for a direction to the opposite parties to withdraw the said amount besides compensation for harassment, mental tension etc. and litigation expenses.

2.                Case of the opposite parties, in their joint reply, is that the complainant is not the consumer because the department allotted the quarter to the complainant giving the benefit of 80 unit electricity per month. The impugned bill of current consumption charges with added sundry charges has been issued to the complainant as per law, rule and regulation of the department i.e. letter/memo no.66/SE/RA-448 dated 20.8.2014, memo no.1808/HERC/DDT dt. 12.8.2014 and written in at item no.316. The complainant being an employee of the department did not avail the departmental remedy of filing representation at Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum, Hisar Camp at Sirsa.

3.                 In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record various documents i.e. Ex.C1-his own supporting affidavit; Ex.C2-bill; whereas, the opposite parties have placed on record Ex.R1-affidavit of Sh.D.R.Verma, Sub Divisional Officer; Ex.R2-Writing/Item no.316; Ex.R3-details of employees; Ex.R4-Memo no.1808; Ex.R5-Memo no.66 and Ex.R6-consmption details.

4.                We have heard complainant in person and learned counsel for the opposite parties and have gone through the record carefully.

5.                 It is admitted fact that complainant is consumer of Nigam since long. Complainant is employee of Nigam and has been allotted quarter by the department in the colony 132 KV, Barnala Road, Sirsa. The Nigam issued an electricity bill to the complainant on dated 18.12.2014 payable on 2.1.2015, in which  the Nigam has added Rs.595/- as Sundry charges. The complainant has challenged the same in this Forum. During the course of arguments, counsel of Ops stated that there is one meter installed  in the colony for the 43 consumers/inhabitants  including residential quarters, rest house, offices etc. After summation/accumulated, reading of all the consumers, the main meter has showed the excess reading, which has been divided in all the consumers  as their own basic reading ratio.  The sundry charges have been added on the basis of letter/memo no.66/SE/RA-448 dated 20.8.2014 Ex.R5, memo no.1808/HERC/DDT dt. 12.8.2014 Ex.R4 and written in at item no.316 Ex.R2 of Nigam. There is no lab report on the file about the correctness of main meter. We would like to say that there should be mechanism fault in the main meter. When the complainant has paid the consumption charges as per reading of his meter since long and  nothing is due against him, so, complainant is not liable for any technical fault of main meter. There is no evidence on the file when the Ops have found the discrepancies in the main meter, Ops have not installed a check  meter parallel to meter in question, which could show the correctness of the installed meter.  Fast running main meter is not binding upon the complainant.  Complainant during the course of proceedings moved an application, in reply thereto, Ops admitted that the meter of Rest house was running slow 66.66%. It is admitted fact that the electricity supply of Rest House is also running through the main meter. When the meter of Rest house is running slow, it is presumed that the said difference of units is of rest house consumption, so, the complainant is not liable to pay the sundry charges.

6.                In our opinion, the approach of Ops in adding the disputed amount to the tune of Rs.595/- in the bill Ex.C2 of the complainant is totally illegal and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Admittedly, the disputed amount was added in the bill of the complainant on the basis of circular mentioned above and departmental Invoice Ex.R2 thereof. If it was also the Ops should have issued a show cause notice to the complainant, so that the complainant could have get an opportunity to put forward its case if there would have been any objection from the side of the complainant. It was mandatory for the Ops to afford an opportunity of being heard to the complainant before adding the disputed amount in the account of the complainant. However, the Ops did not afford any opportunity to the complainant and straightway added the disputed amount in the electricity bill of the complainant, but this action of the Ops is nothing but totally arbitrary and violative of the principles of the natural  justice and hence illegal and the disputed amount has to be set aside. Holding these views, we have relied upon the observations of the Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in a case Anwar Auto Works Versus the Secretary HPSEB & Ors. III(1999) CPJ, 501.  Similar observations were made by our Hon’ble State Consumer Commission, Haryana Panchkula in a judgment dt. 3.4.2008 while deciding Appeal no.604 of 2008.  Moreover, Ops even did not supply the details of the amount to the complainant. No additional recovery can be effected from the consumer without hearing the complainant in view of the the authority, Jodhpur Vidut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Vs. Birma Ram 2004(IV) CPJ, 59.  It is a settled law that no body can be condemned unheard.  Thus, without giving any detail and an opportunity of being heard to the complainant, the action of the Ops in adding the disputed amount in the bill of the complainant Ex.C2 payable on 2.1.2015 is nothing, but an illegal and arbitrary approach and it clearly amounts to deficiency in service and negligence on their part. The complaint of the complainant thus deserves acceptance qua the disputed amount of Rs.595/- added by the Ops in the bill Ex.C2.

7.                In the light of above discussion, we accept the complaint of the complainant with cost of Rs.2000/- and set aside the disputed amount to the tune of Rs.595/-  added by the Ops in the electricity bill of the complainant Ex.C2 payable on 2.1.2015 including surcharge, if any. The complainant is directed to pay the electricity bill regularly in future. Compliance of this order be made within a period of one month, failing which the complainant would be at liberty to initiate the legal proceedings against the Ops. File be consigned to records.              

Announced in open Forum.                                    Presiding Member,

Dated:12.1.2016.                                            District Consumer Disputes

                                   Member.                                Redressal Forum, Sirsa.

Ram Singh  Vs.   DHBVN

Present:       Complainant in person.

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

                   Arguments heard.   For orders to come up on 12.1.2016.

Dated: 5.1.2016. 

                                                          Member.               Presiding Member,

                                                                                      DCDRF,Sirsa.

Present:       Complainant in person.

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

                   Order announced. Vide separate order of even date, complaint has been allowed with costs. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.                                  Presiding Member,

Dated:12.1.2016.                                        District Consumer Disputes

                                                                   Redressal Forum, Sirsa.

                             Member.