Haryana

StateCommission

A/1/2015

DHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

Nirmal Singh - Opp.Party(s)

Amaedeep Hooda

11 Feb 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                             

                                                         First Appeal No.01 of 2015

Date of Institution: 16.12.2014

& 01.01.2015

                                                           Date of Decision: 11.02.2016

 

1.         Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Ltd, through its Executive Engineer, Operation Division, DHBVN, Fatehabad Tehsil and District Fatehabad.

2.         Sub divisional Officer, Operation Sub division, City, Dakshin Haryana BijliVitran Nigam, Fatehabad Tehsil and District Fatehabad.

3.         Junior Engineer, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Badopal, Tehsil and Distt. Fatehabad.

…..Appellants

Versus

 

Nirmal Singh S/o Jagmohan singh, R/o village Salamkhera,Tehsil and District Fatehabad.

                                                …..Respondent

 

CORAM:                    Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                                                                          

Present:                     Shri  Amardeep Hooda, Advocate counsel for appellant.

                                    None for the respondent.

 

                                                               O R D E R

URVASHI AGNIHOTRI, MEMBER:

 

1. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. (DHBVNL), Fatehabad and Anr. Appellants are in appeal against the order dated 17.11.2014 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short ‘District Forum’), Fatehabad, whereby the complaint of Nirmal Singh-complainant has been allowed and the bill nEx.C3 is declared null and void qua the sundry allowance also restraining the opposite parties (O.Ps.) from effecting any recovery on the basis of impugned bill.  The O.Ps. are further directed to replace the meter of the complainant as per rules of the Nigam and to pay Rs.1,000/- to the complainant on account of harassment, mental agony and cost of litigation.  The amount deposited (if any) by the complainant as per order of the District Forum is to be adjusted in the account of the complainant.
2. In brief, an electric connection bearing account No.SK-ID/0348 stood installed at village Salamkhera Tehsil & District Fatehabad and the complainant has been using the electricity and making the payment of the bills regularly.  The complainant has used only 711 units of electricity for one year for the period from 13.04.2011 to 11.04.2012 on an average of 60 units per month.  In the bill payable on 11.04.2013, old reading of the complainant’s meter was shown as 711 units wheres the new reading was shown as 5337 units.  On 11.12.2013 an amount of Rs.14,249/- was shown as sundry charges without providing any detail of the same to the complainant. The O.Ps. issued another bill for a sum of Rs.20,628/- payable on 11.02.2014 in which units consumed have been shown as 915.
3. According to the O.Ps., under the scheme of half margin the new reading was recorded in July, 2013 as 5900 and old reading after deducting 711 in January 2012 has been shown as 5189.  Therefore, the complainant was served with a notice No.1315 dated 01.10.2013 for making the payment of this amount within 7 days, but the complainant had deposited 50% of the amount i.e. 10314/- on 25.02.2014 as per order of the District Forum. Till February, 2014 an amount of Rs.11,147/- has been shown as outstanding against the complainant. However, the learned District Forum rejected the pleas raised by the O.Ps. and accepted the complaint vide order dated 17.11.2014.
4. Against the impugned order dated 17.11.2014, the O.Ps. has filed appeal before us contending that the audit party of the appellant checked the account of the complainant and found that the appellants issued less consumption bills to the complainant as F-Code instead of actual consumption recorded in ledger from January, 2012 to July, 2013.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record.  From a perusal of the record the correct factual position is that the complainant had paid 711 units in January, 2012 on actual consumption basis and thereafter he paid the bills on the basis of average consumption upto July, 2013.  In July, 2013, complainant consumed 5900 units as shown in the meter, but, he deposited the bill only upto 3351 units.  Therefore, the difference of the two readings was charged from the complainant in half margin report i.e. 5900-3351=2549 units.  It was on this basis that a notice dated 01.10.2013 was issued to the complainant to deposit an amount of Rs.14249/- along with sundry charges. The Nigam is demanding this amount from the complainant, which they are entitled so to recover in accordance with their rules, regulations and instructions. We do not find any deficiency in service on their part in doing so. But, so far as their demand for sundry charges is concerned there is no reasonable justification for making the same.
6. Consequently, we partly allow the appeal and modify the demand made by the Nigam allowing them to recover/adjust the amount of the bill for 2549 units only without any sundry charges.  There shall be no order as to costs.

 

 

February 11th, 2016                   Urvashi Agnihotri                                   R.K.Bishnoi,                                                     Member                                                Judicial Member                                                Addl. Bench                                          Addl.Bench

S.K.