District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.

Consumer Complaint  No.507/2019.

 Date of Institution: 18.10.2019.

Date of Order: 14.7.2022.

Vijay Singh  son of Shri Avtar Singh R/o H.No. 371, Gali NO.3, Surya Vihar, Agwanpur, Distt. Faridabad.

                                                                   …….Complainant……..

                                                Versus

1.                SDO (OP.) DHBVNL, Sub division, F-54, Tilpat, Faridabad.

2.                XEN, DHBVNL, Sector-23, Faridabad.

                                                                    …Opposite parties……

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. T.S.Tomar, counsel for the complainant.

                             Sh.  Gopal Dutt Sharma, counsel for opposite parties.

ORDER:  

                             The facts in brief of the complaint are that  the complainant was holder of an electricity connection bearing account No. 6039951987 which was installed at H.NO. 371, Gali No.3, Surya Vihar, Agwanpur, Faridabad.  The complainant had received SBM Bill NO. SB19127bfasnbc10080 dated 27.09.2019 for the month of September, 2019 for an amount of rs.28,567/- from the side of the opposite parties. The complainant got shocked and surprised to know that the opposite parties had shown a sum of Rs.27,246/- as arrears in the said bill.  Rather there was no outstanding towards the complainant of the opposite parties.  The complainant was regularly making the payment of the electricity charges to the opposite parties.    The complainant had already received wrong bill NO. 603996203048 dated 15..06.2019 for an amount of Rs.25,257/- for the month of May 2019.  The complainant many times visited the office of the opposite parties to correct the said bills and also given the complaint in writing but they did not correct the same till date, so the complainant could not make the payment of said wrong bill.  After receiving bill dated 27.09.2019 for the month of September, 2019 for an amount of Rs.28,567/-, the complainant again many times visited to the offices of the opposite parties to correct the said bill as well as previous bill for the month of May, 2019 but the opposite parties always delayed the matter on the pretext or the other and did not correct the previous and present bill. 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)                 bill No. 603996203048 dated 15.06.2019 for an amount of Rs.25,257/- for the month of May, 2019 and SBM Bill NO. SB19127bfasnbc10080 dated 27.09.2019 for the month of September, 2019 for an amount of Rs.28,567/- are null and void and having no authenticity in the eyes of law.

b)                correct the above said bills according to actual meter reading and also direct the opposite parties to send the correct and actual bills to the complainant in future.

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

d)                 pay Rs.21,000/ - as litigation expenses .

2.                Opposite parties  put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite parties refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that  the complainant has got no cause of action to file the complaint, since it is case of correct billing as per the reading in the meter.  The bill sent to the consumer is correct as per reading in the meter, the bill had been sent/put up for further correction of bill of consumer.  The present suit of the complaint was not maintainable as the mandatory notice under  section 80 of Code of Civil Procedure had not been served upon the DHBVNKL/opposite party before filing the present suit.  It was submitted that DHBVNL was an Electricity Company Owned & Controlled by Government of Haryana and carried Public importance function of distribution & maintenance of electricity supply in southern part of State of Haryana  Therefore, DHBVNL was an instrumentality/agency of the Government of Haryana and as such, was a “State” under Article 12 of Constitution of India, since leave exemption of 80(2) of CPC for grant of exemption had not been filed for present petitioner, if leave petition was not filed than the present suit was liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. Opposite parties 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 parties – DHBVN with the prayer to : a)           bill No. 603996203048 dated 15.06.2019 for an amount of Rs.25,257/- for the month of May, 2019 and SBM Bill NO. SB19127bfasnbc10080 dated 27.09.2019 for the month of September, 2019 for an amount of Rs.28,567/- are null and void and having no authenticity in the eyes of law. b) correct the above said bills according to actual meter reading and also direct the opposite parties to send the correct and actual bills to the complainant in future. c)  pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . d)  pay Rs.21,000/ - as litigation expenses .

                   To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence affidavit of Shri Vijay Singh,  bill dated 27.09.2019,, bill dated 02.07.2019, original complaint sent to Hissar on 10.4.2019, bill dated 08.04.2019, bill dated 18.02.2019,,  bill receipt,,  Complaint  CM Window, Receipt registered on 20.09.2019.

                   On the other hand counsel for the opposite parties strongly agitated and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite parties, affidavit of Shri Vijay Singh, Bill dated 22.02.2018,, bill dated 11.06.2018, bill dated 18.12.2017,, bill dated 16.04.2018,, bill dated 22.10.2018, Demand payment receipt for new connection temporary.

6.                During the course of arguments Shri vijay Singh complainant has made a statement that he is ready to pay the latest bill dated 13.06.2022 for Rs.34,280/- that stands as on today without the penalty/surcharge form 22.11.2019 to 14.07.2022.

7.                On the other hand, Shri Gopal Dutt Sharma, counsel for opposite party has made a statement that latest bill as on 13.06.2022  is Rs.35,282/- and he has paid last bill on dated 09.12.2018 i.e. Rs.238/-.  After direction as per the DHBVNL the bill stands today i.e on 14.07.2022 he has not paid the bill i.e. Rs.35,282/-.

9.                After going through the evidence led by the parties and the statement given by both the parties, the  Commission is of the opinion that the difference between the latest bill dated 13.06.2022  comes to Rs. 1002/- (Rs. 35,282/- minus 34,280/-) as per the statement of both the parties.  There  is difference of  Rs.1002/-.  This issue goes in favour of the complainant.  Hence, the complaint is disposed

off with the direction to opposite parties to  charge only Rs.34280/-  from the complainant as remaining  bill. There are no order 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.

Announced on: 14.07.2022                                  (Amit Arora)

                                                                                  President

                     District Consumer Disputes

           Redressal  Commission, Faridabad.

                                                (Mukesh Sharma)

                Member

          District Consumer Disputes

                                                                    Redressal Commission, Faridabad.