Haryana

Fatehabad

137/2014

Rohtash Kumar s/o Shri Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

Executive Engineer DHBVN, Sub-divisional Officer - Opp.Party(s)

Sant kumar

20 Aug 2014

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,FATEHABAD.

 

                                                           Complaint No.:137 of 2014.

                                                           Date of Instt.: 13.08.2014.

                                                           Date of Decision: 09.03.2015.

 

Rohtash Kumar son of Shri Ram resident of D.C. Colony, Fatehabad Tehsil & District Fatehabad.

 

                                                                             Complainant.

 

                             Versus

 

 

1. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, through Executive Engineer, Operation Division, DHBVN, Fatehabad Tehsil & District Fatehabad
2. Sub-Divisional Officer, Operation Sub-Division, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, City Fatehabad Tehsil & District Fatehabad.

   

                                                                             Opposite parties

 

             Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

 

BEFORE:           Smt.Pushpa Mehta, Presiding Member.

                             Sh.R.S.Panghal, Member

 

Argued by:           Sh.Sant Kumar, Adv. for the complainant.

                             Sh.Sita Ram, Adv. for the Opposite Parties.

 

ORDER:

                            

1.                          The complainant has filed this complaint against the    OPs with the averments that the complainant is a consumer of the OPs as he has taken a domestic electric connection bearing account No.KM1D-0915  from them and he has been using the electricity and also making the payment of the bills regularly. It has been further averred that OPs had issued an electricity bill amounting to Rs.47,836/- payable on 12.08.2014 wrongly, illegally and without affording any opportunity of being heard as the house of the complainant is very small. The OPs had also issued bills of 2069 units and 3946 units despite the fact that the sanctioned load of the complainant is 1.2 K.W. and in order to recover the said electricity bills the OPs are bent upon to disconnect the electricity connection. The OPs had requested the OPs to treat the impugned bill of Rs.47836/- as null and void but it lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other. The OPs had not supplied the detail of calculation to the complainant. Due to refusal of the OPs to treat the impugned bill as null and void cause of action has arisen to the complainant to file the present complaint. The act and conduct of the OPs is deficiency in service on their part.  The complainant in evidence has tendered affidavit and documents Annexure C1, Annexure A to D.

3.                                 The OPs appeared and filed their joint reply taking several preliminary objections such as locus standi, cause of action and concealment of material facts. It has been submitted that the meter of the complainant was removed as it was dead stop in May, 2014 and was changed vide MCO No.46/680 dated 28.04.2014 and at the time of removing the meter the actual reading was 5080. Thereafter the bill was sent to the complainant on actual consumption basis after deducting the average bill and the net amount of the bill had come to Rs.30058/-.  The meter of the complainant was found OK and in the bill amounting to Rs.46469/-has also included the amount the previous bill amount and current bill amount. The OPs had issued the bill as per rules and regulations of the Nigam and the complainant is bound to pay the same to receive uninterrupted electricity supply. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Other pleas of the complaint have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.  In evidence the OPs have tendered affidavit and documents Annexure RW1, Annexure R1 to Annexure R6.

4.                          Arguments advanced on behalf of both the parties have been heard and the case file has been perused very carefully.

5.                          Electricity bill having been questioned by the complainant of Rs.47,836/- payable on 12.08.2014 was to be justified  on behalf of the OPs department by explaining the detailed consumption data and tariff charges which has not been done. Being service provider electricity department is duty bound to redress the grievance duly raised by the customers. In the present case, the complainant has claimed that he is bonafide consumer and is paying tariff charges as per bills. It is admitted case that meter installed at the premises of the complainant was changed on 28.04.2014 being dead stop and as per rules of Nigam account was overhauled. Ledger showing the details in Annexure R2 indicating the calculation of bimonthly consumed unit is itself apparently misconceived one because as per their own document (annexure R2) the Nigam has already charged excess amount and Rs.8426/- were refundable upto the month of April, 2014. Other documents of the Nigam Annexure R1 & Annexure R4 also express the consumed unit to be 67.6 and 436.5 respectively on 07.05.2014 and 01.09.2014 whereas the bill under challenge is showing consumed units 2069, which lacks justification and not supported by any substantial reasoning. The act and conduct of the OPs clearly reveals that they have taken the matter in casual manner without taking care of the interest and benefit of the consumer and from a government agency such like attitude is not acceptable.  The complainant has been able to prove his case by leading cogent and reliable evidence that the OPs are deficient in providing service to him, therefore, the present complaint deserves acceptance. Hence, the bill in question is hereby quashed and the OPs are directed to issue fresh bill as per actual consumption after adjusting the refundable amount of Rs.8426/- shown in Annexure R2 and OPs are also directed to adjust the amount paid (if any) by the complainant as per order of this Forum dated 26.08.2014.  The OPs are further directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and litigation expenses.  Compliance of this order be made within two weeks.  A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

 

Announced in open Forum.

Dated:09.03.2015

                                                                    (Pushpa Mehta)

                                                                   Presiding Member,

(Ranbir Singh Panghal)                       Distt.Consumer Disputes

      Member,                                                 Redressal Forum, Fatehabad.

 

 

 

 

                  

 

 

 

Present :               Sh.Sant Kumar, Adv. for the complainant.

                             Sh.Sita Ram, Adv. for the Opposite Parties.

 

                            

                             Order announced. Vide separate order of even dated, we allow this complaint. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced: 09.03.2015

                                                                   (Pushpa Mehta)

                                                                   Presiding Member,

(Ranbir Singh Panghal)                       Distt.Consumer Disputes

      Member,                                                 Redressal Forum, Fatehabad.