Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/228/2016

Shree Ram Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

DHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

Dinesh Bhardwaj

10 Apr 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.

 

         CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. :   228 of 2016

                             DATE OF INSTITUTION            :    24.10.2016

                                       DATE OF ORDER:                    :   10.04.2024

 

Sri Ram Sharma son of Sh. Ram Kishan Das R/o Naya Bazar, Near Keshav Colony, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District, Bhiwani.

 

          ……Complainant.

 

Versus

 

1. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Vidyut Nagar, Hisar, District Hisar through its Managing Director.

 

2. The S.D.O. DHBVN, Sub Urban, Sub Division No.1, Bhiwani.

 

….. Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT, 1986.

 

BEFORE:     Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member.

Ms. Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member.

 

Present:-      Sh. Dinesh Bhardwaj, Advocate for complainant.

                    Sh. N.M. Sharma, Advocate for OPs.

 

ORDER:

 

Saroj Bala  Bohra, Presiding Member.

 

1.                 Brief facts of the present complaint are that complainant is having a domestic electricity connection bearing no.1111104UVV1D1985 (new a/c no. B11VV1D1985A) taken from OPs. Complainant has alleged that he was paying the bills thereof regularly.  It is stated that in the year 2015, electricity meter of complainant burnt anyhow, so OPs were informed and after proper formalities, new meter was installed.  It has been submitted that complainant was shocked to see a bill of Rs.1,28,074/- for the month of January 2016 for 20196 units. The matter was brought into notice of the Ops but no solution came out.  Further, complainant received bill dated 12.09.2016 of Rs.1,45,116/- in which old units shown as 531 and new as 648, in this way, 117 units were consumed, however, later on the said amount  was reduced to Rs.47,011/- by the OP. Complainant has alleged that this amount is having some heavy surcharges which is wrong and illegal.  Hence, the present complaint has been preferred by complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of Ops resulting into mental pains and physical harassment besides monetary loss. In the end, prayer has been made to issue directions against the OPs to rectify the bill dated 24.09.2017 amounting to Rs.47,011/- and to send bill on actual consumption basis. Further to pay Rs.40,000/- towards harassment and Rs.11,000/- on account of litigation expenses. Any other relief, to which this Commission deems fit, has also been sought.

2.                 Upon notice Ops appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua deficiency in service, maintainability of complaint and suppression of material facts. On merits,  it is submitted that complainant had not paid the bills since June 2015. Meter of complainant was changed vide MCO dated 24.12.2015, however, meter was not entered in the record of OPs  and isused bills for the month of 01/2016,03/2016 and 05/2016 on average basis and in between meter was entered in the record of OP.  OPs have submitted that difference of consumption of old and new meter reading was taken and total amount  of Rs.2,19,898/- was outstanding against the complainant and account of complainant was overhauled, after that, correct bill of Rs.47,011/- was sent to complainant, who is liable to pay the same. In the end, denied for any deficiency in service or harassment by OPs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

3.                 In evidence of complainant, his affidavit Ex.C1/A alongwith documents C-1 to C-9 were filed and then closed the evidence.

4.                 On the other side, documents Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-9 tendered into evidence of Ops and then closed the same.

5.                 We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record on case file.

6.                 From pleadings of OPs, it is derived that before June 2015, complainant was paying bills of electricity regularly.  Thereafter, meter of complainant was change on 24.12.2015 but entry qua change of meter was not brought on their record by the OPs, therefore, bills for the month of 01/2016, 03/2016 and 05/2016 were sent to complainant on average basis. Later on, after calculating difference of consumption of old and new meter reading an amount of Rs.2,19,898/- was outstanding against the complainant, however, after overhauling the bill was corrected to Rs.47,011/-.

7.                 Perusal of bill dated 05.05.2015 for the period from 20.02.2015 to 20.04.2015 (Annexure C-1), reveals that the bill was for 145 units and no arrears was towards the complainant in this bill. Further perusal of this bill reveals that prior to June 2015, for a period of six month, the consumption of electricity units of complainant was upto 120 – 218 units. Meaning thereby that complainant was consuming maximum units 218 prior to June 2015. But the next bill dated 05.07.2015 (Annexure C-2) sent to complainant by OPs was for Rs.25,321/- for 2965 units consumed and mentioning therein energy charges Rs.20,013/-. As per contentions of OPs, an amount of Rs.2,19,898/- was outstanding against the complainant, however, after overhauling the bill was corrected to Rs.47,011/- by the OPs. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for complainant has submitted that after installing new meter, bills were sent to complainant on actual reading basis and the bill for the month of March 2024 is for 282 units which is as per actual consumption basis.

8.                 After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, we have come to conclusion that the OPs have sent bills to the complainant without actual meter reading basis rather it were on the average basis which amounts to  gross negligence and deficiency in service on their part. Had the OPs redressed the grievance of complainant before knocking the doors of this Commission, he must not have dragged into this unwarranted litigation. Such, act and conduct of OPs have harassed the complainant mentally & physically and has to suffer financial hardship. Accordingly, the complaint is allowed and OPs, jointly and severally, are directed to comply with the following directions within 40 days from the date of passing of this order:-

(i)       To overhaul the electricity account of complainant for the period from June 2015 to December 2015 on the basis of actual consumption of three bills prior to the disputed bill dated 05.07.2015 and three bills after installation of new electricity meter to the premises of complainant without levying any surcharge(s). The amounts deposited by the complainant after the disputed bill be adjusted against his electricity account.

(ii)      To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) to the complainant as compensation for harassment.

(iii)     Also to pay a sum of Rs.55,00/- (Rs.Five thousand five hundred) as litigation expenses.

                     The amounts mentioned in para (ii) & (iii) shall be paid to the complainant in cash and not to be adjusted towards the electricity bills. In case of default, the awarded amounts shall attract simple interest @ 9% per annum for the defaulted period. Pending application in this case, if any, also stands disposed of.

                    If this order is not complied with, then the complainant shall be entitled to the execution petition under section 71 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and in that eventuality, the opposite party may also be liable for prosecution under Section 72 of the said Act which envisages punishment of imprisonment, which may extend to three years or fine upto rupees one lac or with both.  Certified copies of this order be sent to parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.  

Announced.

Dated:10.04.2024.