BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.

                                                          Consumer Complaint no. 151 of 2016                                                                          

                                                            Date of Institution         :    14.06.2016                                                                        

                                                            Date of  Decision  :    14.12.2016

Surender Kaur, aged 62 years, widow of Shri Bassan Singh, resident of MITC Street, Khaipur, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.

                                                                                        ……Complainant.

                                      Versus

1. Dakshini Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., through its Managing Director at Hisar.

2. Executive Engineer, Dakshini Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., ‘OP’ City Division, Sirsa.

3. 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:                 SHRI S.B.LOHIA…………………PRESIDENT

                             SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL……MEMBER.   

Present:           Sh. J.B.L. Garg, Advocate for the complainant.

          Sh. P.D. Gupta, Advocate for the opposite parties.

ORDER

                                In brief, case of the complainant is that electricity connection bearing no. ST-21/0430 new account no.6495570000 in the name of deceased husband of complainant Sh. Bassan Singh is installed for supply to the residential premises of complainant at MITC street, Sirsa. As alleged, complainant is beneficiary of the said connection and consuming electricity on regular payment to the ops. The grievance of the complainant against the ops is that since January, 2015 to February, 2016, the ops claimed the consumption charges in respect of above said connection from the complainant on average basis. Thereafter, in April 2016, the ops sent a bill for 444 units on average basis. Then in April, 2016 the ops again issued another bill No.649555834202 dated 13.4.2016 payable by 26.4.2016 wherein the ops have shown consumed units as 6785 with old reading as 10921 and new reading as 17706 and claimed sum of Rs.50,629.41/- as current cycle charges and after some adjustment they claimed Rs.41,952/-. On visiting to the ops, they failed to give any satisfactory reply to the complainant. The demand of the ops is totally wrong, incorrect and unjust. Hence, this complaint. 

2.                On notice, ops appeared and contested the complaint by filing written version. The ops admitted that complainant has been charged the electricity consumption on average basis with effect from 07/2015 to 3/2016. It is also admitted that ops issued the bills in the month of April, 2016 to the complainant as alleged by complainant. However, it is replied that the block of the meter had burnt and at that time the meter recorded the units consumed by the complainant as 10921 and thereafter the bills w.e.f. 07/2015 to 3/2016 were sent on average basis. The meter was changed on 10.3.2016 It is further replied that at the time of removal of the meter, the units consumed by the complainant read as 17706. New meter was installed in place of old one with reading Zero. Hence, the difference of old reading and latest reading was 6785 for which the complainant has been charged after adjusting the average charges already paid by her.

3.                By way of evidence, complainant has tendered her affidavit Ex.C1, copies of various bills Ex.C2 to Ex.C7 and receipt Ex.C8. Whereas, ops produced affidavit Ex.RW1/A, chart of reading Ex.R1, MCO Ex.R2 and copy of disputed bill Ex.R3.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.

5.                The facts of the case are admitted one. The only question to be determined is that whether the ops rightly issued the disputed bill or not. To determine this question, we carefully gone through the record and relevant case law and rules. From the perusal of Ex.R1 it is clear that ops never charged the complainant with such a huge consumption charges as in the disputed bill. From the reading chart Ex.R1, it is clear that consumer consumption always bio-monthly revealed from 204 units to 467 units except the alleged bill. Even after the change of meter, reading of the complainant travelled within the maximum units of 259. From the record, it is clearly reflected that complainant never consumed such a huge consumption as claimed by the ops.

6.                Now coming to the version of ops that the block of the meter of the complainant had burnt and they claimed average charges since 7/2015 to 3/2016. If block of the meter as alleged by the ops had burnt, then there is no reply as to why they failed to change the same for a long period of eight/ nine months. Further, if block of the meter had burnt, then question of recording of units by the burnt meter does not arise. Learned counsel for the complainant cited case law of RSA No.4610 of 2015 (O&M) dated 29.2.2016 titled as DHBVN Vs. Sudesh Rani in which Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana held that “in case of no notice served upon the respondent as to date on which meter was being checked in said laboratory, in absence of there being any proof that respondent had opportunity to present herself in lab at the time of testing meter, principle of natural justice are rightly held to be violated. It is further held that an opportunity of hearing provided in rules itself not proved by appellant to be given then principles of natural justice have been violated.” In the case in hand, it is also an admitted fact that ops never served any notice upon the complainant for her presence in the laboratory at the time of checking of defective meter. Further, there is no lab. report to support the ops’ version that at the time of checking, meter was having reading as 17706. Learned counsel for complainant also placed on record instruction No.4.14 for adjustment of consumer’s account if meter is found inaccurate or inoperative by a Nigam’s employee vide sale circular No.28/2013. Besides it, in our view in the absence of any laboratory report on record, ops have failed to prove that there was any reading in the burnt meter as alleged by them.

7.                Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we are of the considered view that impugned bill No.649555834202 dated 13.4.2016 claiming amount of Rs.41,952/- has been wrongly issued by the ops and same is set aside. Accordingly, complaint is accepted with the direction to the ops to overhaul the account of the complainant taking the reading for the period under which the meter remained in defective condition i.e. 07/2015 to 3/2016 on the basis of average of previous and future consumption as per their sales circular No.28/2013.  No order as to costs. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.                                           President,

Dated:14.12.2016.                                                District Consumer Disputes

                                                Member                Redressal Forum, Sirsa.