Haryana

StateCommission

A/138/2016

DHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAM PARSHAD - Opp.Party(s)

B.D.BHATIA

27 Apr 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No    :   138 of 2016

Date of Institution :   11.02.2016

Date of Decision   :   27.04.2016

 

1.      SDO, DHBVNL, OP City, Sub Division, Sirsa, District Sirsa.

2.      DHBVNL through its Managing Director at Hisar.

3.      Executive Engineer, DHBVNL, OP, City Division, Sirsa, District Sirsa.

                   Appellants-Opposite Parties

Versus

 

Ram Parshad, Foreman, Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Limited, resident of 132 KV Colony, Barnala Road, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.

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 the appellants

                             Shri Ram Parshad-respondent-complainant in person

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH, J (ORAL)

 

By filing this appeal, SDO, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others -opposite parties (for short ‘DHBVNL’) have challenged the order dated January 12^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sirsa (for short, ‘District Forum’) whereby complaint filed by Ram Parshad -complainant was allowed by declaring the electricity bill (Exhibit C-2) null and void.

2.      Complainant is residing in a colony of DHBVNL, Sirsa.  He is having energy meter bearing Account No.ST44-0002.  In the said colony, there are about 100 houses of the employees including the residence of Senior Officials, SDO, XEN, Rest House, Laboratory, Transformer, Workshop, Temple.   Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission (HERC) vide notification dated January 09^th, 2013 made regulations that single point supply by the Distribution Licensee of 11 KV or higher voltage, depending upon the feasibility, for making electricity available to the employees residing in the colony and for common services/non domestic loads.  To supply the electricity, meter was installed to have the reading of the units consumed by the inhabitants of the colony. DHBVNL issued electricity bill dated December 18^th, 2014 (Exhibit C-2) to complainant by adding Rs.784/- as sundry charges.  The said sundry charges were added because as per DHBVNL supply of electricity was more in the meter installed at single point then the meters installed at the residence of the employees including XEN, Rest House, Laboratory, Transformer, Workshop, Temple etc.  The grievance of the complainant that he should not be burdened with Rs.784/- as sundry charges because he was paying the electricity bills regularly.

3.      By the impugned order, the said bill has been declared null and void and DHBVNL was not entitled to recover the amount of Rs.784/-. 

4.      It is an admitted fact that the complainant had been paying the electricity bills regularly and his meter was duly checked.  The meter was found intact and no defect was found in the said meter.  Meaning thereby the meter had shown the actual consumption consumed by the complainant. 

5.      The only plea raised by DHBVNL that sundry charges were demanded in view of the letter dated August 12^th, 2014 (Exhibit R-4) written by Secretary, HERC Panchkula to the Managing Director, DHBVNL wherein it was stated that single point meter installed at respective Power Colonies, is being raised by the Company and amount is being realized accordingly and the difference between single point meter and summation of individual energy meter is being apportioned amongst respective residents.   

6.      Since the complainant was paying the bill regularly, his meter was duly checked and found in order.    The DHBVNL has failed to produce evidence as to how the consumption of electric energy shown by single point meter was apportioned between the various consumers/residents.  It was the duty of the DHBVNL to check the single point meter installed at the residential colony to find out any defect rather to impose sundry charges on its residents. The DHBVNL was not justified in adding Rs.784/- as sundry charges in the bill of complainant. In view of this, there is no illegality or irregularity discernible in the impugned order passed by the District Forum.  Thus, the appeal is dismissed.    

 

Announced 27.04.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK