BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 118 of 2016
Date of Institution : 06.05.2016
Date of Decision : 08.11.2016
Tara Chand aged 60 years s/o Sh. Nanak Chand, resident of village Bharolianwali, Tehsil Rania, Distt. Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus
1. Assistant General Manager (SDO), DHBVN, Sub-Urban Division, Rania.
2. General Manager (Executive Engineer), DHBVN, Division 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.Jagwant Singh, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. S.K. Garg, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
In brief, case of the complainant is that complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties having electricity connection bearing account No. SR18-2970, old account number TRI62970 installed at his residential premises in village Bharolianwali, Tehsil Rania, Distt. Sirsa. He is regularly paying the consumption charges as per reading. Now the opposite parties have issued a bill for a sum of Rs.26,050/- vide bill No.01878 payable up to 17.5.2016. In the alleged bill, the op Nigam added a sum of Rs.8162.75 as energy charges (SOP) electrical duty Rs.141.30, fuel surcharge adjustment Rs.2171.50, current cycle charges Rs.10475,56 and sundry charges/ allowances as Rs.15,574/-. No objection was raised by the ops at any point of time regarding the less consumption or working of the meter. It is further pleaded that prior to the present bill, the Nigam issued bill No.01870 dated 29.2.2016 in which consumption charges for the months of February, April, June, August, October and December, 2015 have been shown on the basis of average of 160 units per month and the said bills have been paid by the complainant in time. Now the op Nigam all of a sudden has issued a false, wrong and heavy amount bill in arbitrarily manner. There is no defect in the meter as per record of ops and a new reading of 4063 units has been shown in the bill and old units have been shown as 2640. The ops have failed to issue the regular consumption charges to the complainant and at this stage they have no right to recover the sundry charges of Rs.15,774/-, current circle charges of Rs.10,475.56/-, fuel surcharge of Rs.2171/- from the complainant because he is not at fault and the impugned bill is liable to be corrected. Despite repeated requests, the ops have failed to accede the demand of the complainant and he has suffered a lot of harassment. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties have replied that bill for Rs.26050/- is based on consumed units of energy, with detail of charges as 10475.56 as current bill for two months and Rs.15574/- of consumed units of 2640 which is previous reading of meter of complainant during period of August to March minus average charged. As the meter of the complainant was reported to be defective, so he was charged on the basis of average billing as per rules and regulations of Nigam. No extra amount is charged from the complainant. The bill is correct and on the basis of actual reading and on the basis of consumed units. It is very imaginary stand of the complainant as he accepts the accuracy of the meter but he wants to avoid the payment of bill. The meter of complainant was burnt, so new meter was installed in the month of August, 2015 and he was charged on minimum and average basis. Remaining contents of the complaint have been denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint has been made.
3. In evidence, the complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copies of bills Ex.C2 to Ex.C4, copy of receipt of amount of Rs.10476/- Ex.C5. On the other hand, opposite parties have tendered affidavit of Sh. Harbans Lal, Commercial Assistant cum Clerk as Ex.RW1/A, copies of office reports Ex.R1 and Ex.R2.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
5. The main question to be determined in this case is whether the opposite parties charged the complainant rightly at the time of issuance of bill No.1878 payable on 17.5.2016 or not? From the perusal of affidavit of Sh. Harbans Lal official of opposite parties Ex.RW1/F and documents Ex.R1, Ex.R2, it is clearly established that opposite parties have rightly issued the said bill to the complainant on the basis of actual consumption. The opposite parties have also placed on file calculation of the account of the complainant at the time of arguments according to which the account of the complainant was overhauled and net chargeable amount from the complainant is Rs.15793/- for consumption of 2640 units after deduction of the amount of Rs.2298/- which complainant already paid on average basis for the relevant period. As such, in our view there is no deficiency in service in issuing of bill No.1878 and complaint deserves dismissal. The authority of Hon’ble National Commission cited by learned counsel for complainant in case titled as V.P.Aggarwal Vs. Chief Engineer, Electricity Department Union Terrioty, Chandigarh, Revision Petition No.1181 of 2004 decided on 7th December, 2005 and the authority of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh State Commission, Bhopal in case titled as M.P.Electricity Board Vs. Shiv Kant Choubey II (1999) CPJ 85 are not applicable to the facts of the present case. Similarly the authority of Hon’ble Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh in case titled as Chandigarh Bottling Co. Vs. Chandigarh Electricity Department, I (1999) CPJ 61 is also not applicable in the present case.
6. Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, the present complaint is hereby dismissed. 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:08.11.2016. District Consumer Disputes
Member Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
