District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.

Consumer Complaint  No.487/2020.

 Date of Institution: 22.12.2020.

Date of Order: 31.8.2022.

M/s. Aggarwal RMC, Near Om Dharam Kanta, Transport Nagar, Jharsentili District Faridabad through its Authorized representative Shri Ajay goyal.

                                                                   …….Complainant……..

                                                Versus

SDO (OP)/Assistant Engineer, Dakshini Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Sub Division, F-33-S/U, Sector-58, Faridabad.

                                                                   …Opposite party……

Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Now  amended  Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.

BEFORE:            Amit Arora……………..President

Mukesh Sharma…………Member.

PRESENT:                   Sh.  N.K.Gupta,  counsel for the complainant.

                             Sh. Gopal Dutt Sharma, counsel for opposite party.

ORDER:  

                             The facts in brief of the complaint are that   a domestic electricity connection bearing meter A/c. No. F33-GG21-0326 had been installed in the premises of complainant and complainant had regularly paying the electricity bill as per consumption.  The complainant had issued the bills to the complainant, in which the opposite party wrongly mentioned the billing cycle of units in the following manner:-

The complainant had paid an amount of Rs.89,077/- to the opposite party and thereafter the opposite party had issued further two bills correctly and lastly issued an impugned bill of billing cycle 22.3.2019 to 25.4.2019 in which shown old unit as 103775 and new unit as 105789 i.e 1983 unit amounting to Rs.83010/- (Rs.13791.58 as unit charges plus Rs.66,775/- as sundry charges), while the complainant had paid the entire bill amount upto date and nothing had become due against the complainant.  The complainant went to the opposite party to delete the said impugned sundry charges from the above said bill, but the opposite party did not heard the legitimate request of the complainant and opposite party threatened the complainant that if the complainant should not deposit the said amount then the opposite party would disconnect the said connection.  The complainant had deposited the said impugned amount to the opposite party.  The complainant requested the opposite  party many a times to refund the said amount of Rs.66,775/- to the complainant or to adjust the same in future bills.  The complainant sent legal notice  dated 26.08.2019 through his counsel to the opposite party but all in vain. The aforesaid act of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint.  The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite party to:

a)                either to refund the said amount of Rs.66,775/- or to adjust the same in future bills.

 b)                pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .

c)                 pay Rs. 11,000 /-as litigation expenses.

2.                Opposite party   put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that  the bill issued to consumer as Rs.66,775.00 as sundry charges is correct as per units and nothing was refundable to the consumer by DHBVNL. It was further submitted that the bill was pending towards consumer as sundry charges.  Opposite party denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.

5.                In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite party– SDO(OP) DHBVNL with the prayer to: a)  either to refund the said amount of Rs.66,775/- or to adjust the same in future bills.  b) pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . c)  pay Rs.

11,000 /-as litigation expenses.

                   To establish his case the complainant  has led in his evidence,  Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Shri Ajay Goyal, Authorised representative of M/s. Aggarwal RMC, Near Om Dharam Kanta, Transport Nagar, Jharsentli, District Faridabad, Ex.C1 – legal notice, Ex.C-2 – postal receipt, Ex.C-3 – meter reading along statement of account,

On the other hand counsel for the opposite party strongly agitated and

opposed.  As per the evidence of the opposite party  Ex.DW1 – affidavit of Shri Parveen Kumar, SDO (OP) S/US/Divn. DHBVNL Ballabgarh, Ex.DW1 – Internal Revenue Audit Department.

6.                 Counsel for the complainant argued that a domestic electricity connection bearing meter A/c. No. F33-GG21-0326 had been installed in the premises of complainant and complainant had regularly paying the electricity bill as per consumption.  The complainant had issued the bills to the complainant, in which the opposite party wrongly mentioned the billing cycle of units         He had paid an amount of Rs.89,077/- to the opposite party and thereafter the opposite party had issued further two bills correctly and lastly issued an impugned bill of billing cycle 22.3.2019 to 25.4.2019 in which shown old unit as 103775 and new unit as 105789 i.e 1983 unit amounting to Rs.83010/- (Rs.13791.58 as unit charges plus Rs.66,775/- as sundry charges), while the complainant had paid the entire bill amount upto date and nothing had become due against the complainant.

                   On the other hand, counsel for the opposite party has argued that the bill issued to consumer as Rs.66,775.00 as sundry charges is correct as per units and nothing was refundable to the consumer by DHBVNL. It was further submitted that the bill was pending towards consumer as sundry charges  The bills are issued in correct manner in the billing cycle as per readings. He further argued that the bills issued are as per the consumed units and Rs.66,775/- as  sundry charges are correct as per units.

7.                After going through the evidence led by the parties, the Commission is of the opinion that the complaint is disposed off with the direction to  opposite party to over haul the account of the complainant and adjust an amount of Rs.66,775/- on the next billing cycle. There are no orders as to costs. Compliance of this order  be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.  Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced on: 31.08.2022.                                 (Amit Arora)

                                                                                  President

                     District Consumer Disputes

           Redressal  Commission, Faridabad.

                                                (Mukesh Sharma)

                Member

          District Consumer Disputes

                                                                    Redressal Commission, Faridabad.