BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 112 of 2017
Date of Institution : 22.5.2017
Date of Decision : 25.10.2017.
Sumer Chand, aged 79 years son of Shri Kaka Ram, resident of House No.15/95/2, Old Court Road, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
- Dakshini Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., through its Managing Director at Hisar.
- Executive Engineer, Dakshini Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., ‘OP’ City Division, Sirsa.
- Sub Divisional Officer, Dakshini Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., ‘OP’ City Sub Division, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
SMT. RAJNI GOYAT ………………… MEMBER
SH. MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE …… MEMBER.
Present: Sh. R.K. Mehta, Advocate for the complainant alongwith complainant.
Sh. Rishi Sharma, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
The case of the complainant in brief is that complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties in respect of domestic connection old A/C No.1131202 UST 390364, new A/c No.1431180000. He has been making payment of consumption charges to the ops regularly without any default. That the meter of the above electric connection has been installed outside the premises of complainant i.e. on electric pole which is at a distance of about 60 feet. It is further averred that in the month of December, 2016, the complainant noticed that the electric meter has been running fast and thus on 22.12.2016, he lodged a complaint with the op no.3 which was registered as complaint no.3450. Thereafter, the op no.3 got checked the said meter and a sum of Rs.90/- was got deposited from the complainant. On 3.1.2017, the old defective meter was removed and a new meter was installed in its place. It is further averred that after change of the meter, the complainant was served with a bill no.14313635680 dated 10.2.2017, wherein the old reading of the old meter was shown as 15715 and new reading as 17607 i.e. for 1892 units for the period w.e.f. 30.11.2016 to 10.2.2017 and other period w.e.f. 10.1.2017 to 30.1.2017 with old reading as ) and new reading as 80 i.e. for 80 units and thereby claimed a sum of Rs.17,125/- as consumption charges for the same. That the complainant on receipt of this bill was highly shocked and surprised to receive such an excessive bill, which proved his suspicion that the meter was running fast because the meter recorded reading of 1892 units between 41 days. The complainant approached the op no.3 and apprised him of the situation that in the past he had never been billed so excessively and heavily and requested for correction of the same whereupon op no.3 promised to look into the matter and allowed the complainant to deposit a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards this bill which was accordingly deposited by the complainant on 20.3.2017. That thereafter, the complainant was served with another bill dated 5.4.2017 for the period w.e.f. 30.1.2017 to 30.3.2017 with old reading as 80 and new reading as 414 i.e. for 334 units, wherein besides the current consumption charges, the ops also added the previous arrears and sent the bill of Rs.17,065/-. Again the complainant visited the op no.3 and requested him to look into the matter whereupon the op no.3 supplied the copy of a report of AEE M&T Lab, Sirsa dated 23.2.2017 wherein only the reading of the meter was shown as 176071, but there was no finding of the Lab. about the accuracy of the meter. However, the ops allowed the complainant to deposit a sum of Rs.3,000/- which was deposited by him on 18.4.2017. The op no.3 got checked the old defective meter from M&T Lab, Sirsa in the absence of complainant. He was not given any notice or intimation of the checking of the meter by the M&T Lab, Sirsa and even the M&T Lab. did not check the accuracy of the meter for which the complainant had lodged the complaint, rather extracted its reading whereas the same was not in issue. Now the ops on the basis of this checking report are claiming the consumption charges which is totally wrong, illegal, unjust, improper and arbitrary on the part of ops. The old meter had never recorded such an excessive reading of 1892 units in a span of 41 days which is quite clear from the functioning of new meter installed by the ops. So, the bills dated 10.2.2017 and 6.4.2017 are liable to be corrected/ rectified and account of the complainant is liable to be overhauled in the light of consumption recorded by the meter during the corresponding period of the previous year. That the complainant approached the ops no.2 and 3 and requested them to withdraw the impugned bills and also to overhaul his account but they did not pay any heed to the same and have refused to do so rather threatened that in case the payment of disputed amount is not made then the electric connection of the complainant will be disconnected. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability; locus standi; cause of action; estoppal and concealment and suppression of true and material facts. It is submitted that it is wrong that the meter installed at the premises of complainant was running fast. After removal of this meter, the same was referred to the Lab. and as per report of lab. dated 23.2.2017, the meter removed from the premises of complainant was found working within the permissible limit with final reading of 17607 units. So, the bill raised to the complainant upto 17607 units is checked and found to be correct. The complainant was allowed to deposit the part payment of Rs.3000/- on his request that he is unable to pay the entire bill amount. The story of the complainant is afterthought, false and baseless and there is not an iota of truth in the same. It is further submitted that prior to filing the present complaint, the complainant had filed a complaint before the Forum for Redressal of Consumer Grievances, DHBVN, Hisar which was registered as case no.HD/CGRF-1684/2017, which has been closed by the Forum vide order dated 18.4.2017 and no relief has been given to the complainant. The meter was also got checked up from the M.& T Lab., and the same was reported to be in perfect working condition. The bills served upon the complainant are perfectly legal and valid and have been prepared as per reading recorded by the meter. Remaining contents of the complaint have also been denied.
3. The complainant produced his affidavit Ex.C1/A and copies of bills Ex.C2 to Ex.C6 and copy of complaint before customer care centre Ex.C7. On the other hand, ops produced affidavit of Sh. Deepak, SDO Ex.R1, copy of ledger of account Ex.R2, copy of memo of Forum for Redressal of Consumer Grievances Ex.R3 and copy of order Ex.R4, copy of lab. report Ex.R5 and copy of bill Ex.R6.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and complainant in person and have perused the case file carefully.
5. The complainant has filed this complaint with the allegations that complainant is holding a domestic connection of electricity in his house and meter installed in his house was running fast and was giving excess reading more than actual consumption of the electricity at the house of complainant. In order to prove his case, the complainant has furnished his affidavit Ex.C1/A in which he has reiterated all the averments made in the complaint and has produced copies of bills Ex.C2 to Ex.C6 and copy of meter complaint before customer care centre as Ex.C7. On the other hand, ops have furnished affidavit of Sh. Deepak, SDO as Ex.R1 in which he has reiterated all the defece plea taken in their written statement and relied upon the documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R6.
6. The perusal of Ex.R4 reveal that prior to filing present complaint, complainant approached the Forum for Redressal of Consumer Grievances, DHBVN, Hisar and both the parties had put their claims before that Forum and the Forum after hearing parties had dismissed the complaint of the complainant. The copy of order reveal that an offer was made by the Forum to the present complainant to get the meter checked afresh in his presence to which the consumer refused and insisted that the meter be given to him for checking at his end independently.
7. It is an undisputed fact between the parties that the meter installed in the house of complainant was duly changed/ replaced with a new one and the meter in question was sent to the Lab. for its testing and it was found OK as per the report of the Lab. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for complainant has strongly contended that the meter was not tested in the lab. in the presence of the complainant nor any notice prior to the testing was ever given to the complainant before the date fixed for testing of the meter which caused prejudice to the rights of the complainant. Ld. counsel for ops has not denied this fact that complainant was not present at the time of the testing of the meter. It will be in the interest of things that an opportunity is given to the complainant to get his meter tested from another Laboratory of the department in his presence.
8. In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is partly allowed and the opposite parties are directed to send the meter in question in another laboratory for testing other than the lab. where it was previously got tested with a prior notice to the complainant for the date fixed for testing if the meter is so available with the department and the condition of the meter is intact and the ops are further directed to overhaul the account of the complainant if any fault is found in the meter as per report of the laboratory and to adjust the amount if any excess paid by the complainant than the actual consumption charges. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, both the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:25.10.2017. Member Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
