Haryana

StateCommission

A/782/2015

DHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

HARYANA JAN PRATINIDHI COOP.G.H.SOCIETY LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

B.D.BHATIA

30 Nov 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :    782 of 2015

Date of Institution:    15.09.2015

Date of Decision :     30.11.2015

 

1.     Deputy General Manager, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, KCG Division, IDC Mehrauli Road, Gurgaon.

 

2.     General Manager (OP) Circle, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Gurgaon.

                             Appellants/Opposite Parties

Versus

 

The Haryana Jan Pratinidhi Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited, Sector-28, Gurgaon, through its President Shri Gopi Chand Gehlot.

                                      Respondent/Complainant

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:               Shri B.D. Bhatia, Advocate for appellants.

                             Shri Arun Kumar Singal, Advocate for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

Deputy General Manager, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (DHBVNL) and another-Opposite Parties, are in appeal against the order dated May 23^rd, 2014, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Consumer Complaint No.103 of 2011.

2.      The Haryana Jan Pratinidhi Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited-Complainant/respondent, obtained electric connection bearing account No.BS-44-0018 (old Account No.BS-66) from the DHBVNL and was paying bills regularly. The officials of the DHBVNL checked the above said connection on June 11^th, 2010 and observed that the connected load of the complainant Society was 15% more than the sanctioned load, accordingly, the DHBVNL as per instructions of Sales Circular No.62/2006, charged tariff on the basis of Bulk non Domestic supply of Tariff rate of Rs.4.09 per unit instead of Bulk Domestic Supply of Tariff at the rate of Rs.3.50 per unit and thus vide notice bearing Memo No.1253 dated June 25^th, 2010, raised demand of Rs.7,28,046/- from the complainant, as difference of tariff, above stated. By filing complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complainant challenged the above notice stating it as arbitrary and illegal.

3.      The opposite parties/DHBVNL, contested complaint by filing reply stating that the impugned amount was rightly demanded from the complainant as per sales instructions of the DHBVNL.

4.      After evaluating the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum allowed complaint issuing direction to the DHBVNL as under:-

“…Consequently the Notice of demands dated 25.6.10 (C1) is null & void along with future bill of demand thereof i.e. dated 15.9.10 (C3) and 14.1.11 (C4). Thus, the impugned illegal demand stand quashed and OP are directed to rectify the impugned Bills. The O.P. thus has adopted unfair trade practice to harass the complainant Society, causing mental agony and are also deficient in providing services to its valued consumer.

          Consequently, the complainant society is entitled to a compensation of Rs.20,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization from the OP. it is also entitled to litigation expenses of Rs.5000/-.”

5.      Learned counsel for the appellants/Opposite parties urged that as per Sales Circular No.62/2006, in case connected load is found more than 15% of the sanctioned load for common facility, the entire supply would be charged as non-domestic bulk supply for commercial purpose.  

6.      The plea raised by the opposite parties in the reply was that during the course of checking carried out by staff of the DHBVNL on June 11^th, 2010, the common facilities load was found 15% more, than that of the sanctioned load. Though no such checking report was placed on the file before the District Forum to substantiate the submissions that during the course of checking excess connected load was found, even the last ditch effort made by the opposite parties during the appeal, a photostat copy of alleged checking report has been placed on the file. Even this checking report does not contain signatures of any person on behalf of complainant Society and not even of the checking staff. Can any reliance be placed upon such a document, is anybody’s guess. Certainly the answer would be in the negative. In the checking report without any signatures of any person, not even of checking staff, cannot entitle to opposite parties to change the tariff from the domestic bulk supply to non-bulk supply taking shelter that the connected load for common facilities was found 15% more than the sanctioned load.  In this view of the matter, this Commission does not find any ground to interfere with the order of the District Forum.

7.      For the reasons recorded herein before, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits.

8.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               

Announced 30.11.2015

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL