Haryana

StateCommission

A/106/2015

DHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAKESH KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

ROHIT DHEER

16 Feb 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                First appeal No.106  of  2015

Date of the Institution: 30.01.2015

Date of Decision: 16.02.2016

 

S.D.O., Operations, S/U, Sub-Division, DHBVN Ratia, district Fatehabad, Haryana.

                                                                    .….Appellant

 

Versus

 

Rakesh Kumar S/o Sh.Hans Raj R/o Village Lalwas,Tehsil Ratia & Distt. Fatehabad, Haryana.

                                                                             .….Respondent

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

                    Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Rohit Dheer, Advocate counsel for the appellant.

Mr.Sikander Bakshi, Advocate counsel for the  respondent.

 

O R D E R

R.K.Bishnoi, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

          Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. (DHBVNL), Fatehabad and Anr. Appellants are in appeal against the order dated 16.12.2014 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (In short “District Forum”), Fatehabad, whereby the complaint of Rakesh Kumar-complainant has been allowed and opposite parties (O.Ps.) have been directed to re-connect the power supply in question immediately.  The  District Forum has also directed the O.Ps. to refund the excess billed amount received by the department @ 5.35% unit instead of 25 paisa per unit and also to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.40,000/- as cost of fuel charges, loss of crop as also, Rs.5000/- on account of harassment, fatigue as well as litigation expenses.

2.      In brief, complainant took an electric connection bering account No.31/0006 for agricultural purposes, but according to him te O.Ps. sent him bills @ Rs.5.35% per unit, treating the electricity consumed for non agricultural purposes. Despite that, the complainant had made the payment of the electricity bills @ Rs./5.35 per unit in order to avoid the disconnection electricity. Meanwhile the complainant requested the OP No.2 for issuing the bills for agricultural purposes, but when he did not deposit the bills, the O.Ps. disconnected the electricity.  Aggrieved against this act of the O.Ps. alleging deficiency in service, the complainant approached the District Forum for the redressal of his grievance.

3.      The O.Ps. contested the complaint by pleading that the complainant had applied for Horticulture connection under HT category and not for agricultural purpose.  Therefore, he was bound to pay the electricity charges as per the terms of horticulture connection. Since, he failed to pay the bills, the action of the O.Ps. to disconnect the electricity was fully justified.  However, the learned District Forum rejected the pleas raised by the O.Ps. and accepted the complaint vide order dated 16.12.2014 by granting the aforesaid relief to the complainant.

4.      Against the impugned order dated 16.12.2014, the O.ps. has filed appeal before us contending that the learned District Forum has wrongly allowed Rs.40,000/- to the complainant even though in his complaint the amount claimed was Rs.20,000/- only.

5.      We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. The main stay of the complainant’s case is his reliance on the sale instructions issued by the Nigam vide NO.10/2009 dated 17.12.2009.  According to these instructions, the billing of Horticulture  and Fisheries consumers has to be made @ 25 paise per unit i.e. at par with the same terms and conditions s applicable to the agricultural consumers. Even though, these instructions came into force w.e.f. 10.12.2009 yet the O.Ps. have not disputed the same and their applicability to the present case during the course of hearing before the District Forum. Therefore, so far as the rate of the billing is concerned, the O.Ps. are entitled to charge only @ 24 paise per unit instead of Rs.5.35/- per unit.  However, as the complainant in his complaint has claimed only Rs.20,000/- as cost of fuel charges and loss of crop and Rs.5000/- as litigation charges, the grant of Rs.40,000/- in the impugned order is factually and legally incorrect.  Moreover, the complainant has not placed on record any documentary proof to establish the loss of crop and the cost of fuel incurred by him.  Therefore, we cannot grant to the complainant over and above the amount claimed by him in his prayer in the complaint.   Keeping in view the Sale instructions of O.Ps. (Ann.C-8) and the deficiency in service of the O.Ps., we are satisfied that the ends of justice would be adequately met by reducing the amount of Rs.40,000/- as er4roneously awarded by the learned District forum to a sum of Rs.15,000/-.

6.      Consequently, we partly allow the appeal of the O.Ps., and modify the impugned order by directing the O.Ps. to:-

          i)        re-connect the power supply to the complainant’s electricity connection immediately.

          ii)       to adjust the excess billed amount received by the department @ 5.35% unit instead of 25 paisa per unit.

          iii)      to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.15,000/- only as cost of fuel charges, loss of crop as also, and

          iv)      to pay to him Rs.5000/- on account of litigation expenses.”

7.                With this modification appeal stands disposed off.

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

 

February 16th, 2016

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.