DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

₌₌₌

Surinder Kaur wife of Widhi Chand r/o House No.145,  Attawa, Sector 42-B, Chandigarh.

        ---Complainant

                                V E R S U S

Sub Divisional Officer, Electricity Operations, Sub Division No.9, Sector 43, Chandigarh.

                                        ---Opposite Party

CORAM:   SH.P.D.GOEL,                                         PRESIDENT SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL,                        MEMBER DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA           MEMBER

Argued by:         Sh.Sandeep Bhardwaj, Counsel for complainant.                                    Sh.Jatinder Singh, Govt. Pleader for OP.

PER P.D.GOEL, PRESIDENT

1.             The complainant is consumer of electricity bearing A/c No.309/AT11/029900Q. The complainant alleged that he was regularly paying the bills. The complainant received bill dated 01.01.2006 (Annexure C-1) qua which, energy charges were shown to be Rs.410.85 and arrears to be Rs.4711/- against 249 units. The complainant approached the OP but no satisfactory reply was given. However, the complainant deposited the said amount vide receipt dated 18.01.06 (Annexure C-2). Thereafter, the complainant received bill dated 01.09.2006 for Rs.9315/- qua which sundry charges were shown on account of burnt meter and meter no. was shown as CHSE 53712Z. She requested the OP to give the calculations but to no effect. According to the complainant, the burnt meter was not checked. Thereafter, the complainant made the payments against the bill dated 01.03.2007 (Annexure C-4) and bill dated 01.09.2007 (Annexure C-5).

                It is further pleaded that the complainant received bill dated 01.01.2008 on average basis for Rs.7524/- qua which, Rs.5179/- were added as arrears. According to the complainant, OP failed to disclose as to why bills were issued on average basis.  The meter was replaced with meter bearing CHSe83520Z. The complainant deposited Rs.5000/- in he month of November with OP with the request to supply the detailed calculations, checking report of the replaced report but to no effect. Thereafter, the complainant deposited Rs.5300/- against bill dated 01.01.2009 (Annexure C-11) and  Rs.10000/- against bill dated 17.09.2009 (Annexure C-12).

                Thereafter, the complainant received bill dated 01.01.2010 (Annexure C-13) for Rs.15097/- showing arrears of Rs.11927/-, bill dated 01.03.2010 (Annexure C-14) for Rs.20878/- . The complainant wrote a letter to the OP and deposited Rs.120/- for inspection and replacement of the meter as the meter was running very fast. The complainant asserted that the OP checked the meter and stated that the meter was going fast and advised for replacement of the meter. The meter was not replaced by the OP till date.

                Thereafter, in December, 2010, the OP disconnected the supply of the electricity without any reason. The complainant was issued bill dated 01.03.2011 (Annexure C-17) for Rs.42286/- qua which Rs.41904/- were shown as arrears.  According to the complainant, the OP has committed deficiency in service by sending bills on averages basis without issuing any calculations to her. Hence, this compliant.

2.             OP filed written statement. On merits, the averments of the complainant made in the complaint were denied. It has been pleaded that the electricity bill which was issued on 1.1.2006 includes Rs.4236/- as arrears  which

had not been paid by the complainant, so, the arrear amount was reflected in the subsequent bills.   It has been pleaded that the electricity bill dated 1.9.2006 for Rs.9315/- included Rs.4383/- as arrear of previous bill and Rs. 1200/- on account of sundry charges (cost of burnt meter). That electricity bill dated 1.3.2007 reflected nil consumption, which means that the meter was defective and it was not recording any reading. That electricity bill dated 1.9.2007 was issued on average consumption as the meter was defective qua which Rs.33/- were added as arrears, out of which, the complainant deposited Rs.4200/-. That the electricity bill dated 1.1.2008 of Rs.5179/- was raised as arrears relating to the previous period. The complainant deposited only Rs.5000/- as part payment.

                It has further been pleaded that the electricity meter of the complainant was replaced vide MCO No.100/673 dated 19.11.2007 and effected on 7.1.2008. According to the OP, the electricity bill dated 1.1.2009 included Rs.9148/- as arrear of previous dues, out of which, Rs.5300/- was paid.  According to the OP, the account of the complainant was overhauled w.e.f. 13.10.2008 to 7.1.2008. He was charged   @ 379 units per month on the basis of previous consumption recorded by the correct meter w.e.f. 13.10.2005 to 13.10.2006, so the amount of Rs.9708/- was included in the bill dated 1.5.2008. Thereafter, on the request of the complainant, the part payment of Rs.10000/- was allowed.  The OP further pleaded that against the electricity bill dated 01.01.2010 for Rs.15097/-, the complainant deposited Rs.10000/- on 07.12.2009 as partial payment. Thereafter, the complainant challenged the accuracy of meter. As per report, the working of the meter was found correct. It has been pleaded that the bill dated 01.03.2011 includes Rs.41904/- as arrears of previous bills.

                According to the OP, the complainant was running a small Karyana shop and therefore, DMC tariff is levied. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 

3.             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4.             We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and the Govt. Pleader for the OP and have also perused the record. 

5.             During the course of arguments, Sh.Jatinder Singh, Govt. Pleader for the OP made a statement that the OP is ready to charge the complainant on average consumption of the last three or six months or the average of the same months of the preceding years, for the period for which the electricity was consumed by the complainant, qua Instruction No.115 of the Sales Manual. The said statement has been admitted to be correct by the learned Counsel for the complainant. He has further stated that the amount of 50% of demand in question, which has been deposited with the OP, may be ordered to be adjusted.

6.             In view of the said statement, the complaint is allowed and the demand of Rs.41,904/- raised by the OP is ordered to be quashed with the direction to the OP to charge the complainant – consumer for the period, the meter remained operative on average consumption basis of the last three or six months or the average of the same months of the preceding years, per Instruction No.115 of the Sales Manual. The OP is further directed that the amount of 50% of demand in question, if deposited by the complainant may be adjusted in the future bills. No order as to costs. This order be complied with by the OP within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy.

7.             Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.