BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.: 158 of 2017.
Date of Institution: 10.11.2017.
Date of Decision: 31.05.2019.
Ravinder Kumar, Advocate son of Dr. Maman Chand Sharma, Chamber No. 403, District Courts Complex, Bhiwani.
….Complainant.
Versus
- Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam through its Managing Director Vidyut Nagar, Hisar.
- The Superintending Engineer, DHBVN Op. City Circle, BTM Road, Bhiwani.
- The Execution Engineer, Op. City Division, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, BTM Road, Bhiwani-127021.
- Sub Divisional Officer/Assistant Executive Engineer, Op. City, Sub Urban No. 1, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Bhiwani-127021.
…...Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTIONS 12 AND 13 OF
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: - Hon’ble Mr. Manjit Singh Naryal, President.
Hon’ble Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Member.
Present: Shri M. C. Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.
Shri N. M. Sharma, Advocate for the OPs.
ORDER:-
PER MANJIT SINGH NARYAL, PRESIDENT
The case of the complainant in brief, is that he is having electricity connection No.4133380000 in his chamber No. 403. It is alleged that the bill No.413333994781 dated 12.9.2017 for Rs.3516/- for 523 units (old 1101 units and new 1624 units) for the period w.e.f. 6.8.2017 to 6.9.2017 and the complainant paid the same. It is further alleged that the complainant took the reading on 8.10.2017, which was found as 1441 units. It is further alleged that the OP No. 4 has arbitrarily and negligently mentioned 523 units for the month of September, 2017, whereas in the bill of August, 2017 150 units and of October, 2017 86 units have been recorded for the same use of apparatuses in the same chamber. It is further alleged that unreasonable and arbitrary extortion of amount of Rs.3516/- in the bill paid month of September, 2017 has caused unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence, it amounts to deficiency & negligence in service on the part of OPs and as such, he has to file the present complaint.
2. On notice, OPs appeared and filed the contested written statement denying all the allegations of the complainant. It is alleged that complainant has availed the electricity connection for commercial purpose and therefore consumer complaint itself is not maintainable as he is not coming under the purview of definition of the consumer as per Consumer Protection Act. It is further alleged that the commercial entity who hires services from Electricity Board excluded from definition of consumer as per Consumer Protection Act. It is further alleged that the complaint is malafide and has been filed to achieve ulterior motive by the complainant, hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has placed on record duly sworn affidavit of complainant Ex. CW1/A and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C7 in support of his case and closed the evidence.
4. Ld. Counsel for the OPs has placed on record documents as Annexure R1 to R11 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties at length and have gone through the case file carefully.
6. Ld. Counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has contended that the bill No. 413333994781 dated 12.9.2017 for Rs.3516/- for 523 units (old 1101 units and new 1624 units) for the period w.e.f. 6.8.2017 to 6.9.2017. He further contended that the complainant has taken the reading on 8.10.2017, which was found as 1441 units, whereas the OPs have shown 1624 units consumed as on 6.9.2017. He further contented that on the application of complainant the OP has taken the reason on 18.11.2017 which was found 1493 units. He further contended that the OPs have issued wrong bills by showing wrong consumed units. He further contended that the OPs have arbitrarily and negligently mentioned 523 units for the month of September, 2017, 150 units for August, 2017 and 86 units for October, 2017. He further contended that there is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for allowing the complaint with costs.
7. Ld. Counsel for the OPs reiterated the contents of the written statement. He contended that the complainant has availed the electricity connection for commercial purpose and thus consumer complaint itself is not maintainable as he does not fall under the purview of definition of the consumer as per C.P. Act. He further contended that commercial entity who hires services from the Electricity Board has been excluded from the definition of consumer as per C. P. Act. He further contended that the complaint has been filed to achieve some ulterior motive by complainant. He further contended that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and prayed for dismissal of complaint.
8.
After hearing the learned counsel for the complainant and having gone through the material available on the records, we are of the considered view that the complaint deserves acceptance, as there is deficiency & unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The plea taken by the complainant is that the OPs have issued the bills on wrong meter reading basis. The complainant has proved his case by placing on record his duly sworn affidavit Annexure CW1/A, copies of bills Annexure C1 to C3, & C6 and copy of application dated 13.11.2017 as Annexure C7. From the perusal of Annexure C7, it is proved on record that the reading of the meter of the complainant was 1493 units, whereas the OPs have issued the bill w.e.f. 6.8.2017 to 6.9.2017 for total 523 units showing old units 1101 and new units 1624. So, it is clear that the OPs have issued bill by showing wrong meter reading, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The OPs have failed to controvert this plea of the complainant. It appears that the OPs have nothing to say in this case to controvert the stand taken by complainant. Hence, issuing of bills on basis of wrong meter reading by the OPs without any fault on the part of complainant amounts to deficiency in service on their part.
7. Therefore, in view of the circumstances mentioned above, complaint is partly allowed. The OPs are further directed: -
i. To overhaul the account of the complainant on actual meter reading basis without charging any surcharge & penalty and to adjust the excess amount paid by the complainant.
- To pay Rs. 1100/- (Eleven hundred only) as compensation on account of mental agony & hardship, due to deficiency in service on the part of OPs as well as counsel fee & litigation expenses.
The compliance of the order shall be made within 30 days from the date of the order. Certified copies of the order be sent to parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 31.05.2019.
(Saroj Bala Bohra) (Manjit Singh Naryal)
Member. President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
