Haryana

Ambala

CC/228/2019

Dalip Kumar Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

S.D.O - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

20 Jan 2020

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

                                                          Complaint case No.:  228 of 2019.

                                                          Date of Institution           :   26.07.2019.

                                                          Date of decision    :   20.01.2020.

 

Dalip Kumar Sharma son of Shri Rameshwar Sharma, aged about 60 years, resident of House No.731/3, Matidass Nagar, Mahesh Nagar, Ambala Cantt.

 

                                                                                       ……. Complainant.

 

1. S.D.O., Uttri Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Babyal, District Ambala.
2. XEN, Uttri Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, 12 Cross Road, Ambala Cantt.

 

     ..…. Opposite Parties.

         

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member.

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.         

                            

Present:       Smt. Kumud Sharma, Authorized Representative for the                              complainant.

Shri Pardeep Bansal, Advocate, counsel for the OPs.

 

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To send the printed bill to the complainant and SMS regarding bill on registered mobile of the complainant, well within time.
2. To refund the amount of fine of Rs.198/- with immediate effect.
3. To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him.
382.  

Any other relief which this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit.

 

 

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is having a electric connection bearing Account No.355850000. He used to pay the electricity bills to the OPs regularly and was never defaulter. As per the scheme the meter reader after taking the reading and picture of the meter do hand over the bill at the spot but on 29.06.2019, the meter reader concerned had not given the bill to the complainant inspite of his request and told him that bill will be sent to him through SMS. Thereafter, he received an SMS regarding the reading of the meter but no other SMS for generation of bill or printed bill was ever received by him. After waiting for the sufficient time, on 22.07.2019, he approached to the OPs and complained about the same and thereafter, a printed bill was given to him. On seeing the same he found that the due date of payment had already over and the OPs have imposed fine of Rs.198/-, which is totally wrong and illegal. Vide letter dated 22.07.2019, he requested the OPs to waive of the fine but of no avail. Due to compelling circumstances and just to avoid the disconnection of the electricity connection he paid the bill alongwith fine of Rs.198/-.  The OPs by not sending the electricity bill well within time and by imposing fine have committed deficiency in service.  Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel and filed written version, raising preliminary objection regarding maintainability. Due to online system, maximum meter accounts of the consumer are linked with ID/Telephone numbers of consumers and Electricity Board (KYC) is floating all the bills of electricity. The reading of the meter of the complainant bearing account No.3558500000 was recorded by the staff in his presence and the bill was handed over to him at the spot and the bill was also provided through SMS to him. On merits, it is stated that the complainant has already received the provisional bill through SMS from the OPs, but failed to pay the bill on the due date.  The complainant is thus liable to pay the consumption charges alongwith fine of Rs.198/- to avoid disconnection of the electricity meter. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and thus the present complaint  may be dismissed with costs.

3.                The complainant filed replication dated 11.12.2019, reiterating the averments made in the complaint and prayed for allowing the present complainant

4.                Complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-17 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs tendered affidavit of Shri Atitosh Kumar Singh, S.D.O. and Shri Dinesh Kumar (Meter Reader-KNYG)OP’ S/Divn. UHBVN Babyal, Ambala Cantt.  as Annexure OP/A and OP/B respectively alongwith documents Annexure OP-1 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for parties and have carefully gone through the case file.

6.                The complainant has submitted that on 29.06.2019, the employee of the OPs had taken the reading and picture of his electricity meter, but he did not hand over the bill inspite of request. He received an SMS from the OPs about reading of the meter but the amount of the Bill and the date of payment of the Bill amount was not mentioned in the said SMS. He approached the OPs and requested them to give him the printed bill, so that he can make the payment of the bill well within time. The OPs handed over him a printed bill, but by that time the due date to pay the bill was already expired and they had levied Rs.198/- as fine. He requested the OPs to not to charge fine from him, because he could not get the bill in time and as such he was not at fault, but they did not accede to his request.  In support of his contention he has tendered his affidavit and copies of the SMS received, Annexure C-1 to C-12. Whereas, the stand of the OPs is that the Meter Reader after recording the reading of the meter had handed over the bill to the complainant and the bill through SMS was also sent to the complainant. Since, the complainant failed to pay the bill on or before the due date, therefore, the fine of Rs.198/- was rightly imposed. To corroborate this fact they have furnished the affidavit of Dinesh Kumar, Meter Reader Annexure OP-B and of Shri Atitosh Kumar Singh, S.D.O. Annexure OP-A. However, no cogent and convincing evidence regarding handing over the bill to the complainant or his family member has been produced on record by the OPs. In the absence thereof it cannot be presumed the OPs have served a bill upon the complainant. From the perusal of SMS dated 29^th June, 2019 Annexure C-1, it is quite clear that the total consumption of electricity has been mentioned, but the amount of the consumption and the last date for payment of the bill has not been mentioned. Merely on the basis of affidavit which is not supported by any documentary evidence, the contention of the OPs that they had served the printed bill well within time and due to non-payment of electricity bill on the due date, they have rightly imposed fine of Rs.198/-, is not tenable. In this view of the matter we do not hesitate to conclude that the OPs have committed deficiency in service and are thus liable to refund the amount of Rs.198/- charged as fine and to compensate the complainant for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him. They are also liable to handover the printed bill to the complainant on the spot after taking reading and also to send the bill through SMS, well within time. It may be stated here that the complainant has sought Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him. In the case of Charanjit Versus Healing Touch Hospital, AIR-2000 SC-3138, the Hon’ble Supreme Court and in the case of  Surindera Kumar Tyagi Versus Jagat Nursing & Hospital & Another-IV (2010) CPJ 1999 (NC),  the Hon’ble National Commission has held that compensation should be commensurate with loss & injury, suffered by the complainant. The compensation is required to be fair and just & not unreasonable, arbitrary. The consumer Fora are not meant to enrich the consumers, at the cost of the service providers, by awarding, unfair, unreasonable & highly excessive compensation. In view of the principal of law lay down in the aforesaid cases by the Hon’ble Superior Courts/Fora, we hold that the compensation sought by the complainant for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him is excessive and it will be just and proper, if compensation to the tune of Rs.2,000/- be paid by the OPs, to him.

7.                In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby allow the present complaint against OPs and direct them in the following manner:-

1. To refund Rs.198/- charged as fine.
2. To handover the printed bill to the complainant on the spot after taking reading of the meter and also to send the bill through SMS well within time
3. To pay Rs.2000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him.

 

          The OPs are further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within the period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, failing which, they shall pay interest on the amount of Rs.198/- @9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 26.07.2019, till its realization. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on :20.01.2020

 

 

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma)        (Ruby Sharma)                   (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                             Member                            President