BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 60 of 2017
Date of Institution : 15.03.2017
Date of Decision : 29.11.2017
Suresh Kumar, aged about 30 years son of Shri Jagdish Chand, resident of village Sikanderpur, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
- Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, through its Managing Director, Vidyut Nagar, Hisar.
- Executive Engineer, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Sirsa, District Sirsa.
- Sub Divisional Officer, Operation City Sub Urban Division, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Sirsa, District Sirsa.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI R.L. AHUJA…… PRESIDENT
SMT. RAJNI GOYAT…… MEMBER.
SHRI MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE……MEMBER.
Present: Sh. R.K. Verma, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Pawan Kochar proxy counsel for Sh. K.K. Relan, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
In brief facts of the case of complainant is that complainant is having small residential house situated in village Sikanderpur in which he has obtained electric connection No.SS12-3081 since long time. The complainant is paying electricity consumption charges to the ops-Nigam regularly. The complainant is consumer of Nigam and has every right to file present complaint for his grievances against the ops. Earlier complainant received bill No.3954 dated 07.06.2016 for 80 consumed units of Rs.332/- which was paid by complainant; then bill no. 3947 dated 06.08.2016 for 387 consumed unit of Rs.2365/- was issued by Nigam which was also paid by complainant. In this manner, nothing remains outstanding against the complainant upto July, 2016. The complainant received bill no.3420 dated 07.10.2016 for the period 16.07.2016 to 16.09.2016 showing 516 consumed unit of Rs.63,921/- in which Rs.60,737/- was shown as sundry charges/allowances. In the bill a sum of Rs.3184.12/- is shown current charges to the Nigam, whereas he is not bound to pay Rs.60,737/- as sundry charges to the Nigam because nothing remains outstanding against the complainant regarding the electric connection. After receiving the above said bill, the complainant approached op no.3 to delete the sundry charges and to correct the above said bill and he may be allowed to deposit current charges but all in vain and the op no.3 has directed the complainant to pay the above said amount otherwise electric connection will be disconnected and the amount recoverd from the complainant by way of adopting coercive method. Whereas in fact, nothing remains outstanding against him as he has already deposited actual consumption charges to the Nigam. The impugned bill no.3420 dated 07.10.2016 of Rs.63,921/- to the extent of sundry charges of Rs.60,737/- is wrong and incorrect, illegal and improper, null and void, against law and facts, against the mandatory provisions of Electricity Rules as well as Act and liable to be set aside and quashed in toto. The complainant is ready to deposit actual consumption charges of Rs.3184.12/- The complainant is a poor person and he is not in position to pay the above said amount to the Nigam. The complainant approached and requested the op no.3 to admit his claim and to correct the bill by deleting excessive amount from the impugned bill, so the complainant may deposit the actual consumption charges. But in spite of allowing the complainant to pay actual consumption charge, the electric connection of the complainant was disconnected and the op no.3 has threatened the complainant to recover the above said amount from the complainant by way of adopting coercive method. The complainant is leading miserable life and he is not in position to pay such huge amount to Nigam. Under the facts stated above, the complainant is legally entitled to restore his electric connection without any further delay but the ops-Nigam is not ready to restore the electric connection without payment of the above said amount. Hence the ops are liable to be directed to restore electric connection of the complainant immediately. In case the ops succeeded in their evil and nefarious designs of recovering the above said amount from the complainant, then the complainant shall suffer an irreparable loss, which would not be compensated in any manner. The act of the ops comes under the definition of deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice, due to which the complainant is suffering from harassment, much mental tensions, fatigue, worries, disappointment and dismay on account of unwarranted act and conduct on the part of the ops and the complainant has been neglected all the times and the ops have refused to accept the request of the complainant. Hence, this complaint
2. The OP No. 1 to 3 appeared and filed its written statement in which they have taken preliminary objections as no cause of action, maintainability, not come with clean hands, no jurisdiction to try and entertain this type of complaint. Further submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering ops, hence no consumer dispute is made out for filing this consumer complaint. The present complaint is based on false and frivolous claim and it has been filed only to harass the ops. On merit they have submitted that the complainant has obtained electricity connection No.SS12-3081. It is wrong to say that the complainant is paying electricity consumption charges to the ops regularly. The complainant did not pay any amount before the Nigam regarding his electricity connection bearing meter no.358732 and was using the electricity without paying any amount since long time. The complainant has not deposited any amount of the meter installed in his premises. Regarding the bills written by the complainant is not the bills of the meter no.358732 of the complainant. Further it is submitted that the complainant Suresh Kumar son of Shri Jagdish applied for electricity connection before the Nigam and the ops/Nigam released the electricity connection vide SCO No.92/273 dated 14.02.2012 effective on 24.02.2012 and installed the meter no.358732 at the premises of the complainant. After accepted it, the father of complainant namely Jagdish signed on the Service Connection Order dated 24.02.2012. It is relevant to mentioned here that Government/Nigam released the policy/scheme in the name of RGGVY for new electricity connection for the BPL holders without taking any applications/ formalities and as per the policy/scheme some electricity meters given to the contractor for installation of it to the BPL holders persons as per the instructions/list given by the Hon’ble Deputy Commissioner Sirsa. During the period of this policy/scheme, a electricity meter was installed by the contractor at the premises of one of the another person namely Suresh Kumar BPL holder. After that the meter reader who took the reading the meters of the villages/consumers, wrote the connection no.SS12/3081 wrongly on the meter of the other Suresh Kumar BPL holder instead of the complainant. The said Suresh Kumar BPL holder was paying the bills of the said meter no.6015298(wrongly written connection no.SS12-3081) regularly but the complainant (consumer of account no.SS12-3081 and meter no.358732) had not paid any amount before the Nigam regarding the reading of the said meter no.358732 since 2012 i.e. from the date of installation of his electricity connection and he was using the electricity without giving any amount regarding this. After that checking was carried out by the checking team of the Nigam on dated 20.07.2016 and the checking team was prepared LLI no.10/347 dated 20.07.2016 of the meter no.358732 in the presence of Jagdish i.e. father of the complainant Suresh Kumar, treated him non consumer. At that time meter no.358732 was removed from the premises of the complainant and taken it in the custody and said meter referred to the M&T Lab for checking the reading and accuracy of seals etc. The said meter no.358732 of the complainant checked in the M&T lab on dated 21.07.2016 vide memo no.3157/3107 and at that time reading in the meater no.358732 on the basis of reading of 9567. The complainant is legally liable to pay this amount before the Nigam and the Nigam is legally entitled to recover this amount from the complainant as per law. It is relevant to mentioned here that the another person namely Suresh Kumar BPL holder paid the bill of his meter no.6015298 the connection no.SS12-3081 and connection of the Suresh Kumar BPL holder disconnected because this connection was running without any record and said meter no.6015298 removed from the site as per the PDCO no.317/37 dated 07.11.2016 effected on 17.11.2016 and at that time of PDCO the final reading in this meter no.6015298 was 1308. After that said Suresh Kumar BPL holder applied for new electricity connection and electricity connection has been released by the ops to said Suresh Kumar vide SCO no.10/1124 dated 23.01.2017 which was effected on 02.02.2017. So as per the detailed given above, it is clear that the complainant had not paid any amount before the Nigam regarding the units of 9567 consumed by him which is recorded in the meter no.358732. It is relevant to mentioned here that no penalty or surcharge added in this amount and the said amount calculated as per the rules of the Nigam. The complainant is legally liable to pay this amount before the Nigam and the Nigam is legally entitled to recover this amount from the complainant as per law. The complainant has suffered no loss much less the irreparable loss if he makes the payment of the bills amount to the ops. Hence prayed that the same be dismissed with special cost, in the interest of justice.
3. The parties have led evidence in the form of affidavits and documents and it is pertinent to mention here that Ld. counsel for the complainant inadvertently endorsed on the documents filed by him Ex.RW1 to RW9 instead of CW1 to CW9. The complainant has tendered Ex.RW1/A-his own supporting affidavit; Ex.RW2 to Ex.RW4 electricity bills; Ex.RW5 and Ex.RW8 ATR, Ex.RW6, Ex.RW7 letters dated 01.05.2017, Ex. RW9 final reply & action taken on CM window Action Taken Report (ATR), whereas, OP has tendered Ex.R1-affidavit of Sandeep Godara, Sub Divisional Officer, DHBVN, OP City Sub Urban Division, District Sirsa, Ex.R2 and Ex.R8, photocopy of service connection orders, Ex.R3 checking report LL1, Ex.R4 joint checking report, Ex.R5 calculation, leading to energy consumption charges of Rs. 60,737/-, Ex. R6 permanent Disconnection Order, Ex.R7 connected load 0.700KW report, Ex.R9 memo dated 25.05.2010.
4. We have gone through the record placed on file carefully and heard the contentions of respective counsels Sh. R.K. Verma Advocate for the complainant and Sh. Pawan Kochar proxy counsel of Sh. K.K. Relan Advocate for the ops.
5. At the very outset, it is pertinent to mention here that on the request of the complainant the ops were directed to restore the electricity connection vide interim order dated 25.04.2017 subject to deposit of Rs.32,000/-(approximately 50%) out of total amount of Rs.63,921/-. On depositing the said amount of Rs.32,000/- on 27.04.2017 his connection was restored by DHBVN Ltd.
6. The complainant has claimed that he is holding an electricity connection bearing no. SS12-3081 and has been paying electricity consumption charges regularly but he received bill no.3420 dated 07.10.2016 for the period of 16.07.2016 to 16.09.2016 showing the 516 consumed units for Rs.63,921/- which included Rs.60,737/- as sundry charges. He has submitted in his complaint that he is ready to pay the genuine amount of electricity charges and not responsible of Rs.60,737/- which is wrong and incorrect.
7. The ops through his proxy counsel Sh. Pawan Kochar confronted the claim of the complainant and averred that he was having electricity connection no.SS12-3081 and did not pay any amount to the Nigam in respect of meter no.358732 and was using the electricity without paying any amount since long. The ops have further averred that government/Nigam under the policy of RGGVY for new electricity connection for the BPL holders allowed/released new electricity connection without taking any applications/completion of formalities. Among such new connection holders another person namely Suresh Kumar BPL holder was one of such beneficiary. The meter reader who took the reading of the consumers through an over site wrote the connection no.SS12-3081 on the meter of another person namely Suresh Kumar BPL holder instead of the complainant. Said Suresh Kumar BPL holder was paying the bills of the said meter no.6015298(wrongly written connection no.SS12-3081) regularly but the complainant (consumer of account no.SS12-3081 and holder of meter no.358732) had not paid any amount to the Nigam since 2012 till the correction of the things by the Nigam in July, 2016. On checking, LL1 no.10/347 dated 20.07.2016 of meter no.358732 was prepared treating the complainant as non consumer and father of the complainant Suresh Kumar was present who signed it at the time of preparing said LL1. At this stage, meter no.358732 was removed and sent to the M&/T Lab for checking the reading and accuracy of seals etc. In lab on finding the working of the said meter OK, seals intact and meter shown reading as 9567 units, a memo no.3151/3107 dated 21.07.2016 was prepared. Thus, on the basis of LL1 checking report no.10/347, vide SCR no.289 sundry was prepared of the meter no.358732 for 9567 units which amounted to Rs.60737/-. Hence the sundry charges calculated as per the rules of the Nigam in respect of meter no.358732 for units consumed by the complainant to the extent of 9567 units is correct and there is no deficiency on the part of the Nigam. The Nigam authorities in support of their claim has placed on the file document Ex.RW2 to RW9 in addition to affidavit of Sandeep Godara, SDO DHVBNL Sirsa. On asking the complainant through his counsel about the proof for payment of electricity consumption charges consumed by him from 2012 to 2016 he failed to place any documentary evidence before the forum. Further, the counsel for the complainant kept mum on asking him about the details of the payments made to the Nigam in respect of connection no.SS12-3081 in respect of meter no.358732.
8. For the reasons and findings recorded above, we found no merit in the complaint of the complainant and he failed to prove his case, as such his claim is dismissed. Both the parties are left to bear their own costs. A Copy of order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:29.11.2017. Member Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
