Haryana

Charkhi Dadri

cc/112/2019

Urmila - Complainant(s)

Versus

S.D.O OP Division city DHBVN, - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Rakesh Sangwan

24 Jul 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHARKHI DADRI.

                              

                                                                        Complaint No.: 112 of 2019.

                                                                        Date of Institution: 24.09.2019.

                                                                        Date of Decision: 24.07.2024.

 

Urmila aged 37 years wife of Ramesh Sangwan, resident of Vivek Nagar, Gali No.10, Charkhi Dadri, Tehsil &  District Charkhi Dadri

                                                                                    ….Complainant.

 

                                                Versus.

1. S.D.O. “OP” Division City DHBVN, Charkhi Dadri.
2. Executive Engineer “OP” Division City DHBVN, Charkhi Dadri.
3. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Vidyut Nagar, Hisar through its Managing Director.

…...Opposite Parties.

                        COMPLAINT UNDER THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.

 

Sitting: -         Hon’ble Shri Manjit Singh Naryal, President,

                        Hon’ble Shri Dharam Pal Rauhilla, Member,

                       

Present:          Shri Rakesh Sangwan, Advocate, for the complainant.  

Shri Dharamvir Vashisth, Advocate for OPs.

 

 

O R D E R

                         The case of the complainant in brief, is that she is having a single phase meter number RC1D0980 which was removed on 05.12.2017 and transferred to three phase meter whose number is 2139392. It is further alleged that  a sum of Rs.1980/- was paid on 29.01.2018 for the bill dated 20.10.2017 to 10.12.2017, after that  next bill  from 10.12.2017 to 10.02.2018 for Rs.2457/- which was paid on 27.03.2018, while old meter was removed on 05.12.2017, so bill dated 10.12.2017 to 10.02.2018 is wrong, null and void. It is further alleged that a sum of Rs. 2763/- was paid on 05.06.2018, after that next bill from 20.10.2017 to 05.07.2018 for Rs.-2970/-. It is further alleged that OPs gave a bill Rs.35360/- (old meter reading date 15.04.2017 to 06.07.2018 for consumed units 2094 and new meter reading date 06.07.2018 to 20.01.2019 for consumed units 6300), the bill is wrong, null and void. It is further alleged that OPs send the bill of Rs.47467/- for the period from 20.01.2019 to 27.03.2019. After the complainant paid Rs.16000/- on 22.04.2019 and after that OPs sent a bill of Rs.1,09,628/- on 27.06.2019 which is also wrong, null and void. It was further averred that a legal notice dated 04.09.2019 was got issued to the OPs, but to no effect.  The complainant further alleged that he visited the office of OPs many a times for correction of the alleged bill but they did not pay any heed. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the OPs, he suffers mental agony, financial loss and physical harassment, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs and as such he had to file the present complaint.

2.                     OPs on appearance filed the contested written statement and took preliminary objections qua maintainability; estoppel; no deficiency; jurisdiction; malafide and suppression of true and material facts. The true facts are that the complainant was earlier issued a single phase meter for domestic use. After that the vigilance department had raided the premises of the complainant on 15.03.2017, during  which the complainant was caught red handed while using the domestic connection commercially and on the spot, LL-1 No.002/288 was prepared on 15.03.2017 in which department has imposed penalty of Rs.69952/- for the crime of electricity theft. Thereafter on complainant’s application his single phase meter was changed into three phase meter. As per instructions and rules of the corporation, in this way a bill of Rs.1,25,654/- was issued on 22.10.2019 in lieu of electricity theft and consumed electricity. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs. 

3.                     The complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex CW1/A, and documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C13 and closed his evidence on 21.01.2020. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.RW-1/A and documents Ex.R1 & Ex.R2 and closed his evidence on dated 02.03.2020. 

4.                     We have heard learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the documents placed on record by both the parties as well as the material aspects of the case very carefully.

5.                     It is true and admitted fact that the complainant has electricity supply meter at her residence with sanctioned load of 2 KW. However, on checking by the Vigilance Team of OP, on 15.03.2017, observed that supply found through meter and used for under construction site. The vigilance team assessed load of 4.184 KW (Stone cutter 1.200KW, Submersible 0.746KW and Gishai Machine 2.238 KW) at site (Ex.R1). Based on report of Vigilance Team penalty   for additional load was imposed on the complainant for  Rs.69,952/- (Ex.R2). This was the genesis of the present complaint. Thereafter, on the request of the complainant the single phase meter was changed to three phase meter but due to penalty of Rs.69,952/- was not paid by the complainant and bill accumulated to Rs. 1,09,628/- vide bill no.896715673531 dated 27.06.2019 (Ex.C8) which comprises penalty amount of Rs. 69,952/- shown under- “Sundry charges/allowances”. This is not a case of theft of electricity as asserted by the OPs in reply, but of course, it is a case of using extra load of 4.184 KW against sanctioned load of 2KW which was used at the time of construction which is temporary for short duration. In view of this fact, it would not be justifiable to impose penalty for Rs. 69,952/-. However charges for additional load to 2.184 KW may be imposed on the complainant for a period of two months, as during construction, the stone cutter and Ghisai Machine were used for limited period only.

6.                     In the light of above mentioned facts and circumstances of the case, the complaint of the complainant is allowed with costs and the Opposite parties are directed: -

1. To reverse penalty for Rs.69,952/- mentioned in the impugned bill no.896715673531 dated 27.06.2019 (Ex.C8) and raise revise bills for actual  consumed units without any penalty and surcharge.
2. To charge for additional load of 2.184 KW only for two months i.e. February & March 2017.
3. To adjust all amounts paid by the complainant during pendency of proceedings in this Commission and overhaul all bills and recover if there is any shortfall or adjust against future bills if there is excess payment.
4. To pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain and agony.
5. To pay Rs. 3,000/- as litigation charges.

                        The compliance of the order shall be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.  Copy of the order be supplied to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.