RBT No. 984 of 2008
In

First Appeal No. 3776 of 2001

HVPN through its Sub Divisional Officer, (OP) S/Divn, DHBVN, Bhiwani.
Appellant.

Versus
Sh. Naresh Kumar son of Sh. Gorakh Ram resident of village Manan Pann Bichla Bazar, Bhiwani, Tehsil & Distt. Bhiwani.

….Respondent.


BEFORE: MAJ. GEN. S. P. KAPOOR (RETD.), PRESIDING MEMBER.

MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

Present : Sh. Surender Chaudhary, advocate for the appellant.

None for the respondent.

MAJ. GEN.S.P. KAPOOR, PRESIDING MEMBER



1. This is an appeal received by transfer from Haryana State Commission by the order of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi filed against the order of learned District Forum Bhiwani (hereinafter for short referred as to Ld. District Forum) dated 24.9.2001 in complaint case No. 292 of 1997: Naresh Kumar Vs. XEN, Haryana Electricity Board Bhiwani.



2. In short the case of the complainant is that he is a resident of Bichla Bazar, Bhiwani and had a electric connection No.H-1052-A at his residence. The meter of the complainant became faulty and was running slow and the same was informed to the OPs who told complainant that the meter will have to be changed. It has further been stated by complainant that the bill used to be sent earlier on average basis for 100 units. The meter was subsequently; changed but even thereafter the energy bill was sent to the complainant on average basis for 200 units amounting to Rs. 500/- + Rs.25 and the bill was to be paid up to 7.10.1997. As per the complainant the bill was sent without taking into account the meter reading and hence the same was illegal. The complainant thereafter received another bill for Rs.2047.75P +102.35P which was to be paid up to November, 1997. As per the complainant this bill was also wrong and illegal and the same was followed by another illegal bill for Rs.2525.50p+Rs.262.25 which was to be paid up to 12.6.1998. The Complainant has further stated that even the meter which had been replaced was defective and had become dead and had further stated that the complainant has only one room and a kitchen and was consuming very low quantity of electricity. Since the complainant’s plea to cancel the wrong and illegal bill was not accepted by the OPs he has filed this complaint.

3. Version of the OPs on the other hand is that the meter of the complainant was dead stop for the period July, 1997 to 29th December, 1998 and therefore, he was charged on ad hoc unit basis as per provisions to Sales Circular No.40/96. It has further been stated that the meter of the complainant had been changed on 29th December, 1998 and the meter account of the complainant has been overhauled vide SC and AR No.130/53/37 dated 7.1.2000 on the basis of consumption of the replaced meter for the period from 29th December, 1998 to 29th December, 1999 i.e. 79 units bi-monthly and the amount charged in excess along with the surcharges totaling to Rs.4067.25p has been adjusted in the account of the complainant and now the complainant has no grievance.

4. The learned District Forum has recorded that from the evidence on record as well as the admission of the OPs it clearly stood established that the OPs charged the complainant in excess amounting to Rs.4067.25P and the same amount was subsequently, adjusted in the account of the complainant. In view of the ld. District Forum because of this wrong billing the complainant had suffered a lot of mental agony and physical harassment and for which the complainant is required to be compensated. Vide impugned order the ld. District Forum directed the OPs to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.1000/- as compensation along with litigation costs of Rs.500/-. The order was to be complied with within 2 months from the date of passing of the order i.e. 24th September, 2001.

5. Aggrieved by this order the OPs had filed this appeal before the Haryana State Commission which has now been transferred to this Commission by the order of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi. Sh. Surinder Chaudhary, advocate appeared on behalf of appellant whereas none was appeared on behalf of respondent/complainant.



6. Sh. Surender Chaudhary, advocate for appellant reiterated the version of the OPs and submitted that since, the excess charged amount had been adjusted in the account of the complainant there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and therefore, the imposition of the amount of compensation as well as the costs of litigation be quashed by setting aside the impugned order.



7. We have gone through the complaint case file and have also heard the counsel for the appellant. From the facts and circumstances of the case it is quite clearly made out that there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs in sending the complainant wrong and illegal bills and for having charged him in excess to the tune of Rs.4067.25P. This act of the OPs forced the poor complainant to enter into this unwarranted litigation. We are definitely in consonance with the view held by the ld. District Forum that the complainant must be compensated for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him. Consequently, we find no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed and the impugned order is sustained.

8. Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.