BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.271 of 2014
DATE OF INSTITUTION: - 16.9.2014
DATE OF ORDER: - 17.7 .2015
Shish Pal son of Late Hulasa Ram, resident of village Gudana, tehsil Charkhi Dadri, district Bhiwani.
……………Complainant.
VERSUS
- Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Vidhut Nagar, Hissar, through its M.D.
- The Deputy General Manager, “OP”, Division, DHBVNL, Bhiwani.
- The Sub Divisional Officer, “OP” Sub Division, DHBVNL, Jhoju Kalan, district Bhiwani.
………….. Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT
BEFORE :- Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Shri Balraj Singh, Member
Smt. Anita Sheoran, Member
Present: - Shri S.S.Pilania, Advocate for complainant.
Shri K.R.Sangwan, Advocate, for the OPs.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
The case of the complainant in brief, is that he installed a tube well connection in his agriculture land in the year 2008 and has been making payment of electricity charges regularly, hence he is consumer qua opposite parties. It is alleged that the opposite parties have been sending the bills on average basis from the very beginning showing the old reading “0” and new is ”5” which were paid regularly. The complainant further alleged that the opposite parties have issued a Memo No.1015 dated 3.6.2014 directing him to deposit Rs.16470/- as sundry charges. The complainant alleged that after receiving the above said memo he visited the office of opposite parties and enquired the matter upon which it was told that amount has been charged on account of audit objection for consumption of electricity of 61 months. The complainant further alleged that he has been making payment of electricity charges regularly, so the amount charged on account of sundry charges is illegal, void, against electricity rules and he is not liable to pay the same with the opposite parties. The complainant further alleged that he visited the office of opposite parties and requested to rectify the bill but they did not pay any heed. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of respondents and as such he had to file the present complaint.
2. Opposite Parties on appearance filed written statement alleging therein that the meter reader has shown the reading in the meter of the account of complainant on “N” code since beginning, so his bills were being issued on MMC basis. It is submitted that audit party of the Nigam during checking notices that reading of the complainant recorded on “N” code for the last 61 months and bill was issued on MMC basis and it cause loss to the Nigam. The Audit Party overhauled the account of complainant on flat rate basis and as such notice bearing Memo No.1014 dated 3.6.2014 was sent to complainant to deposit the same. Again a revised notice bearing Memo No.1245 dated 7.7.2014 was served upon the complainant but he did not appear in spite of notices, so the opposite parties have charged the amount of Rs.16470/- vide SC & AR No.90/112/199 and he is liable to deposit the same with the Nigam. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record Annexure C1 Photostat copy of bill, Annexure C2 & C3 Photostat copies of letters, Annexure C4 Photostat copy of bill, Annexure C5 Photostat copy of letter, Annexure C6 to C69 Photostat copies of electricity bills along with supporting affidavit.
4. In reply thereto, the opposite parties have placed on record Annexure R1 Photostat copy of Audit Report, Annexure R2 & R3 Photostat copies of letters, Annexure R4 Photostat copy of accounts ledger, Annexure R5 Photostat copy of consumption date along with supporting affidavit.
5. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that the Ops are claiming the disputed amount from the complainant under the grab of audit and for the use of electricity for domestic charges.
7. Learned counsel for the opposite parties reiterated the contents of reply. It is submitted that this amount has been charged by the Audit Party on flat rate because the electricity bills were being issued by the Ops to the complainant on MMC as “N” code was mentioned for the electricity meter of the complainant. He further submitted that this amount does not include any penalty or surcharge.
In the light of the pleadings and arguments of the parties we have examined the relevant material on record. As per report of the Audit Annexure “R1” the account of the consumer named in the said report has been overhauled by the audit party and the charges have been claimed on flat rate basis provisionally and according to said report said charges may be adjusted on recording reading of the meter if the meter working is “OK”. We do not find any illegality in the said Audit Report. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hold that the complainant is liable to pay the said amount of Rs.16470/- to the Ops. The complainant shall be at liberty to apply to the Ops for checking of his meter and Ops shall check the meter of the complainant and if the working of the meter of the complainant is found “OK” then the Ops shall charge on the basis of meter reading. With these observations the complaint of the complainant is disposed of with no order as to costs.
Certified copies of the order be sent to both the parties, free of costs and file be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 17.7 .2015. (Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Anita Sheoran), (Balraj Singh),
Member. Member.
