- Complainant Suresh Kumari has filed the present complaint
U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter, for short called the Act) seeking directions to the titled opposite parties to receive the actual consumption charges from her on the basis of average consumption made by her and to change the tariff from NRS to DS. She has also claimed Rs.10,000/- for the mental agony, harassment and inconvenience suffered by her including Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses all in the interest of justice.
- The case of the complainant in brief is that she had purchased a residential house from one Rajinder Kumar son of Sham Lal vide sale deed dated 10.11.2009 and the connection bearing account No.3000186896 was installed in the said house. From the purchasing of the above said house the complainant along with her family members is residing there and using the above said electricity connection and paying its bills regularly and as such she is the consumer of the opposite parties. Opposite parties have issued her a bill dated 4.6.2014 amounting to Rs.23,840/- which is wrong and beyond the consumption made by the complainant as nothing was out standing against her nor she was in arrears of the opposite parties. Complainant never used the electricity to this extent nor she was in position to pay the same. After receipt of the bill in question complainant approached the opposite party no.4 and requested them to rectify the same and to receive the actual consumption charges form her as she never used the electricity to this extent. It is worth mentioning here that the bill issued by the opposite parties showing the status as NRS where in the earlier bills the same was mentioned as DS. Complainant also requested the opposite no.4 to explain the reasons as to why the such like huge amount was adding in this bill without any prior notice. Opposite party no.4 called the complainant to the office number of times after a gap of 6-7 days with assurance that they will rectify the above said bill but after calling 3 times they told the complainant not to deposit the bill and wait for issuance of next bill and to pay the same after rectification. Complainant was surprised when she received another bill dated 19.8.2014 amounting to Rs.31,390/- without rectification of earlier bill. After receipt of this bill complainant again approached the opposite party no.4 and requested them to rectify the same and to receive the actual consumption charges. Opposite party no.4 again called the complainant to his office after a gap of 3-4 days with assurance that they will rectify the bill in question but after calling 3 times opposite party no.4 instead of rectification of the bill refused to take any action in the matter and humiliated the complainant in the presence of their employees as well as other persons and also threatened her that if she will not pay the above amount they will recover the same from her by adopting coercive methods and also disconnect her electric connection. Amount demand by the opposite parties from the complainant without any prior notice or checking is illegal, null & void and against the rules and regulations and not binding upon her, hence this complaint.
3. Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties who appeared through their counsel and filed their written reply wherein it was stated that complainant is not the consumer of the opposite parties as the connection in question stands in the name of one Rajinder Kumar and complainant had not moved any application to transfer the connection in her name which was required as per rules and regulations of the corporation. It was further stated that meter of the complainant was defective and the same was changed vide MCO No.452133 dated 5.5.2014 which duly packed and sealed in a cardboard box and the signatures of the complainant were also obtained on it. Thereafter, meter of the complainant was sent to the M.E. Lab. and it was reported by the M.E. Lab. that the meter of the complainant was dead. The bill dated 4.6.2014 issued to the complainant shows old consumption 3578 units which was calculated on average basis as per electricity supply code regulation 21. New meter was installed on 4.6.2014 at reading 1 and recorded reading 257 thus the total consumption of the complainant was (257-1) 256 units, hence total bill issued to the complainant for 3834 units (256+3578) for which a bill of Rs.29386/- was worked out as the complainant had already deposited a sum of Rs.5546/- with the opposite parties so the balance of Rs.23840/- (29386-5546) still recoverable from the complainant. It is worth mentioning here that complainant had two electricity connections at her premises and she is running “Aushdayala” on the ground floor and residence at first floor. It was also stated that connection bearing A/C No.CF-21/1135 which was installed on 24.7.1999 was domestic one but later on complainant was using the same for commercial purpose of “Aushdayala”. It was stated that complainant had got another domestic connection on 16.4.2010 in the name of Manav son of Dharam Pal which is still running and nothing is due against this connection. Complainant has paid the bill of connection no. CF-21/1135 on 10/11 which was based on commercial tariff as such complainant admitting the version of the opposite parties that she was using this connection for commercial purpose of “Aushdayala”. The facts mentioned in the para no.3 of the reply has already been discussed in para no.2 of the reply. It was further stated that an amount of Rs.23840/- was recoverable from the complainant as she was failed to deposit the same with the opposite parties. A surcharge of Rs.2019/- and disconnection charges of Rs.120/- was also charged to the complainant and hence a sum of Rs.25979/- was worked out besides this current bill of the complainant was Rs.5406/- for the consumption of 712 units for which a sum of Rs.31390/- (23840+2019+120+5406) was worked and the complainant is liable to pay the same with the opposite parties. All other averment made in the complaint have been denied and lastly the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed with special costs.
4. Complainant tendered into evidence her own affidavit Ex.CW1 along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence.
5. Concerned Addl. S.D.O. tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP-1 alongwith documents Ex.OP-2 and Ex.OP-3 and closed the evidence.
- We have carefully gone through the pleadings of both the parties, arguments advanced by their respective counsels and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsels for the purpose of adjudication of the present complaint.
7. Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the opposite parties issued bill dated 4.6.2014 to the complainant for Rs.23840/- which is totally wrong, exaggerated beyond the consumption made by the complainant. The complainant has paid upto date bills and nothing is outstanding against her nor she was in arrear of the opposite parties. It is further submitted by the complainant that the connection in dispute is domestic one but in the bill the opposite parties are showing the same as NRS which is also wrong. Even in the meter status the connection in earlier bills was mentioned as DS. The complainant also requested the opposite party no.4 to explain reasons for adding such like huge amount in the bill without any prior notice. Thus the demand of the opposite parties without any checking and notice is illegal, against the rules and the demand in question is liable to be quashed and it is a clear cut deficiency in service.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that connection bearing A/c No.CF-21/1135 which was installed on 24.7.1999 was domestic connection but later on complainant was using the same for commercial purpose of “Aushdayala”. The complainant also paid bill of connection No.CF-21/1135 on 10/2011 based on commercial tariff and hence admitting the version of opposite parties that consumer was using the domestic connection for commercial purpose. That a sum of Rs.23840/- was recoverable from complainant which he failed to deposit with opposite parties hence surcharge of Rs.2019/- and disconnection surcharge of Rs.120/- was also charged to consumer and hence a sum of Rs.25979/-was worked out. Besides this the current bill of the complainant is Rs.5406/- for the consumption of 712 units of electricity and hence a sum of Rs.31390/- was worked out which consumer is liable to pay to opposite parties.
9. From the pleadings and evidence on record, we observe that the dispute between the parties is only that the opposite parties charged the amount on the basis of NRS tariff when the electricity was used for domestic purpose and no reason was given that how the opposite parties changed the tariff from DS to NRS category. We have gone through the documents, evidence of the opposite parties but there is no iota of evidence produced by the opposite parties for the change of tariff from domestic to NRS. No inspection report is alleged nor produced by the opposite parties for the change of tariff from domestic to NRS category. No prior notice was given before adding the amount directly in the bill. So we are of the opinion that the opposite parties are not entitled to recover the amount from the complainant on the basis of NRS tariff and the amount is calculated and recovered from the complainant illegally.
10. In the light of our above observation and findings, complaint filed by complainant is partly allowed and the bill dated 4.6.2014 be calculated afresh on the basis of DS tariff and the amount which was charged excess be returned to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. If complainant has deposited any amount against this bill be refunded to the complainant. Opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses. Compliance of the order be made within a period of 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order.
11. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned.
(Naveen Puri)
President
Announced: (Jagdeep Kaur)
MAY, 5 2015 Member
*YP*
