BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 49 of 2021
Date of Institution : 26.02.2021
Date of Decision : 09.08.2024.
Monika aged about 30 years wife of Shri Ankit Sachdeva, resident of H.No. 11/418, Gali No.6, Kirti Nagar, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa now resident of Opposite Jagdambey Paper Mill, Shanti Nagar, Sirsa, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Superintending Engineer, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Hisar.
2. Executive Engineer, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Ltd. Sirsa.
3. Sub Divisional Officer, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., City Sub Division, Sirsa, District Sirsa.
..…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Before: SHRI PADAM SINGH THAKUR…………….. PRESIDENT
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR…………………….. MEMBER
SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA ……………….MEMBER
Present: Complainant in person.
Sh. Vijay Sharma, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
In brief, the case of complainant is that earlier she was living with her husband and other family members at House No. 11/418, Gali No.6, Kirti Nagar, Sirsa but about a year ago she shifted to a new residential house in Shanti Nagar, Sirsa and after shifting to the new address, she got released an electricity connection bearing A/c No. 7622361928 from ops. It is further averred that after release of said electricity connection, a bill of less than Rs.3000/- was received by her which was got deposited by her before due date and in this bill, the rate of per unit was Rs.2.70. That thereafter on 22.10.2020 another bill of Rs.6631/- was received by her from the ops for a period of 76 days w.e.f. 07.08.2020 to 22.10.2020 and she deposited the same without any default and in this bill also the rate of per unit was Rs.2.70. It is further averred that since the day of release of aforesaid connection and installation of said electricity meter outside the premises of complainant, only two bills were received by complainant from ops and both the bills have been deposited by complainant without any default and no further bill was issued to her. The complainant contacted the ops in this regard a number of times and requested them to issue the bills time to time enabling her to deposit the same without any default but ops assured her that it is not the matter of worry and on account of heavy workload the bills of the some of the areas in the city are not being prepared and issued. They further assured that within a short period, the bills shall be issued to her in a proper form time to time. It is further averred that now another bill dated 11.02.2021 has been received by complainant from ops vide which ops have claimed a sum of Rs.29,230/- from her for a period of 311 days and said bill is for such days, bills of which have not been issued by ops earlier and as per said bill, the rate of per unit is Rs.7/- whereas in both the earlier bills, the rate of per unit was only Rs.2.70. That immediately after receipt of said bill, complainant contacted the ops and requested them to rectify the bill but ops did not become agree to the same stating that units consumed by complainant fall within the slab of Rs.7/- per unit and asked her to deposit the bill amount otherwise her electricity connection shall be disconnected after due date and have caused unnecessary harassment and deficiency in service without any fault of complainant because complainant is ready and willing to deposit the actual amount as per consumed units but ops have refused to admit her claim despite her several requests. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, ops appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that earlier bill was served upon complainant only for minimum units and the bill in question amounting to Rs.29,230/.- for 311 days was issued to the complainant for 5079.4 units which were consumed during this period and thus the bill was issued to the complainant after making calculation as per Nigam Rules and by following the procedure of slab calculation which is clearly mentioned in the bill itself, but complainant has filed a false complaint by twisting the true and material acts which clearly shows that complainant has either not gone through the detailed contents/ figures given in the bill in question or she despite having full knowledge about the detailed calculation has twisted the same. It is further submitted that bill in question was issued to complainant on the basis of actual consumed units and complainant is legally bound by the same, but she is intentionally avoiding the payment of bill for actual consumed units. There was no occasion to the complainant to approach or request the ops in the matter. Rather the Nigam has several times asked the complainant to pay the amount of bill in question to avoid disconnection of supply, but she did not bother to the same and avoided to make the payment of the actual consumption charges and has filed the present false complaint with an oblique motive. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
3. The complainant in evidence has tendered her affidavit Ex. CW1/A and bills Ex.C1 to Ex.C3.
4. On the other hand, ops have tendered affidavit of Sh. Amit Singh, SDO as Ex. RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file.
6. From the copies of bills placed on file by complainant and ops themselves, it is evident that bill dated 22.10.2020 was issued to the complainant for the period 07.08.2020 to 22.10.2020 i.e. for 76 days and for an amount of Rs.6631/- and complainant claims that she has deposited the said bill well within time. Although old unit as 2513.2 have been mentioned in the said bill by the ops but new units have not been mentioned in the said bill and an amount of Rs.5990.13 has been shown in the said bill as arrears/outstanding dues. The rate of units in the said bill is mentioned as Rs.2.70. Then bill for the period 12.02.2020 to 19.12.2020 for 311 days for an amount of Rs.25,532/- was issued to the complainant in which old units have been mentioned as 217.5 and new units have been mentioned as 5297 units and as such said bill has been issued for 5079.4 units and the status of the bill has been mentioned as OK. However, in the bill dated 22.10.2020 the amount of Rs.5990.13 was shown by ops as outstanding/ arrears without mentioning any units and in the bill dated 08.01.2021 the units have been shown as 5079.4 and meter status has been shown as OK. In the said bill dated 08.01.2021 the period of the bill has been shown as 12.02.2020 to 19.12.2020 despite the fact that bill for the period 07.08.2020 to 22.10.2020 was already served to the complainant for an amount of Rs.6631/-. The ops have not given any reason as to why earlier the bill for the period 12.02.2020 to 07.08.2020 was not issued to the complainant. It is not case of the complainant that meter of the complainant was having any defect and as such initially bill for the amount of Rs.6631/- was issued without showing any units and then bill for the amount of Rs.25,532/- was issued to the complainant on the basis of actual consumption and actual consumed units. The complainant has been served bills for two times for the period 07.08.2020 to 22.10.2020 because first bill was issued for the period 07.08.2020 to 22.10.2020 and another bill was issued for the period 12.02.2020 to 19.12.2020 that also included the period 07.08.2020 to 22.10.2020 which is wrong and illegal act of the ops. Though an amount of Rs.5990.13 as shown in the bill dated 22.10.2020 may be outstanding/ arrears but the ops have failed to show that why they issued the bill after long delay i.e. for the period for 12.02.2020 to 19.12.2020 i.e. for 311 days and they have not shown any reason for issuing such delayed bill to the complainant and have also failed to show any reason for issuing bill for the period 07.08.2020 to 22.10.2020 for two times. The ops are also liable to delete the period 12.02.2020 to 07.08.2020 from the bill dated 08.01.2021. Further the ops have also wrongly applied the rate of units for exaggerated amount in the bill dated 08.01.2021 without any fault of complainant because it were only the ops who issued the bill after long delay. In these circumstances the bill dated 08.01.2021 is liable to be set aside.
7. In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to issue a fresh bill to the complainant for only period of 22.10.2020 to 19.12.2020 as complainant has already deposited the bill for the period 07.08.2020 to 22.10.2020 and ops will also delete the period 12.02.2020 to 07.08.2020 as they have failed to show any reason for not issuing the bill for that period earlier and the reason of such delay. The ops are further directed to issue bill for the period 22.10.2020 to 19.12.2020 after calculating the rate of units as 2.70. We further direct the ops to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as composite compensation for harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant. The ops are liable to comply with this order within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced. Member Member President,
Dated: 09.08.2024. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
