BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.: 291 of 2014.
Date of Institution: 13.10.2014.
Date of Decision: 28.4.2015.
Rati Ram husband of deceased Daya Devi, resident of 162, Vikas Nagar, Bhiwani.
….Complainant.
Versus.
- SDO, City Sub Urban-II, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Bhiwani.
- Executive Engineer, Operation Division, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Bhiwani.
…...Respondents.
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTIONS 12 AND 13 OF
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Sitting: - Shri B.D.Yadav, President,
Shri Balraj Singh, Member,
Smt. Anita Sheoran, Member,
Present: Complainant in person.
Shri Rajesh Punia, Advocate for respondents.
O R D E R
The case of the complainant in brief, is that electricity connection bearing No.VD1D-1994 installed in the name of his wife Daya Devi and after her death he is using the above said connection and has been making payment of electricity charges regularly, hence he is consumer qua respondents being beneficiary. It is alleged that on 5.12.2011 the meter of the complainant was removed by the respondents and installed a defective meter showing the reading 6503 units and the complaints in this regard were made to the respondents. The complainant further alleged that on 5.12.2011 the respondents have issued a bill amounting to Rs.20335/- which was paid on 20.12.2011. The complainant further alleged that the respondents have imposed a penalty amounting to the tune of Rs.8000/- which was also paid by him on 10.1.20112. The complainant further alleged that the defective meter was removed on 25.1.2013 and at that time 7031 units were shown to be consumed by him. The complainant further alleged that after removing the meter the respondents have continuously sending the bills on average basis which is wrong, illegal, arbitrary, against law and facts. The complainant further alleged that he visited the office of respondents several times and requested to install the meter and to rectify the bills on the basis of consumption of six months average recorded by newly installed meter but they did not pay any heed. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of respondents and as such, he has to file the present complaint.
2. Respondents on appearance filed written statement alleging therein that the complainant was making default in payment of electricity charges and in finding the meter faulty 1st MCO was issued on 25.1.2013. It is submitted that the complainant has failed to make payment of electricity bills to the tune of Rs.1,30,845/- and as such PDCO was issued on 17.10.2013. It is further submitted that the complainant was requested to deposit the electricity bills but he failed to do and as such his meter was removed. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of respondents and as such, complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. Both the parties filed their duly sworn affidavits to prove their respective versions.
4. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties at length.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and having gone through the material available on the record, we are of the considered view that the complaint of the complainant deserves acceptance, as there is deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. Admittedly the electricity connection bearing No.VD1D-1994 installed in the name of wife of the complainant and he is using the above said connection being beneficiary. The sole contention of Ld. Counsel for the respondents is that the meter of the complainant became faulty and as such meter change order was issued on 25.1.2013. He further argued that the complainant has failed to make payment of electricity bills and as such PDCO was issued on 17.10.2013 and meter was removed from his premises. In our view, this plea of the respondents has no substance because from the perusal of record the respondents have failed to produce the copy of MCO to prove that the meter of the complainant was replaced on 25.1.2013. Moreover, the respondents have also failed to produce the copy of PDCO which was issued on 17.10.2013. It was the duty of the respondents to produce the same but they have miserably failed to produce the same with the reason best known to them. On the other hand the complainant has successfully proved his case by placing on record Annexure C1 to C29. In these circumstances the P.D.C.O is nonest and issuance of bill on average basis amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. It appears that the respondents did not overhaul the account of the complainant despite several requests only to harass him. Hence, in view of the above circumstances, the complaint of the complainant is allowed with costs and the respondents are directed: -
1. To install new meter immediately and to overhaul the account of the complainant without any surcharge by taking 6 months average reading of new meter and to refund the excess amount, if any deposited by the complainant along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of its payment.
2. To pay Rs. 2200/- as costs of litigation.
The complainant has also moved an application for getting his meter checked from the Electrical Inspector, Haryana Govt. regarding its genuineness. Therefore, the respondents are also directed to get the newly installed meter checked from the Electrical Inspector, Haryana Govt. Within a period of two months from the installation for which the checking charges will be borne by the complainant.
Accordingly, the present complaint is hereby disposed of. The compliance of the order shall be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 28.4.2015. President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Balraj Singh) (Anita Sheoran)
Member. Member.
