Appeal case No.1032/2002/Hry/RBT/1592/2008

Arvind Atri son of Shri Dharamvir Atri, resident of H.No.219, Sector-13, Urban Estate, Karnal.

…Appellant
Versus
Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. Karnal through SDO, Sector-14, Urban Estate, Karnal.
...Respondent

Appeal U/s 15 of Consumer Protection Act,1986 against

order dated 2.4.2002 passed by Consumer Disputes

Redressal Forum-Karnal.

Present: Sh.N.P.S.Kohli, advocate for the respondent.


BEFORE : Hon’ble Mr.Justice Pritam Pal, President

Mrs. Neena Sandhu,Member

JUDGMENT

7.12.2009

Justice Pritam Pal, President


1. This appeal by complainant is directed against the order dated 2.4.2002 passed by District Consumer Forum-Karnal whereby complaint case No.1207 of 1999 filed by him was dismissed.

2. The parties in this judgment hereinafter shall be referred to as per their ranking before the District Forum.

3. The complainant was having an electric connection under account No.LS-13/3670 in the name of his father who died on 9.12.1981 and he was using the said electric connection since the death of his father and was paying the electric bills to OP regularly. It was alleged that OP was sending bills to him on average basis and not as per the actual meter reading. On moving application by the complainant on 8.6.1998, OP fixed a check meter at his premises to know the accuracy of the meter and found that the meter installed at his premises was found running fast by 27%. Instead of correcting the bills and changing the meter, OP sent a bill of Rs.61937/- whereas the consumption bills received by the complainant were ranging between Rs.20,000/- to Rs.22000/-. It was further alleged that OP was sending bills to the complainant on non-domestic supply (NDS) basis whereas connection was installed at the residential premises of the complainant. Hence, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before the District Consumer Forum.

4. On the other hand, the case of OP before the District Consumer Forum was that the meter in question was changed in August,97 by installing a new meter with initial reading of 5 units and complainant was charged on the basis of actual consumption. It was alleged that the premises of the complainant was checked on 9.10.1999 by Sh.S.P.Chandna, JE in the presence of representative of complainant and he was found using the electricity for non-domestic purposes for a connected load of 10.620 KW as against the sanctioned load of 2.9K.W and upto October,1999 an amount of Rs.69981/- was due against the complainant on account of current energy charges and during the period of two years the complainant had deposited only part payment out of the said amount.

5. The District Consumer Forum after going through the evidence and hearing counsel for the parties came to the conclusion that the complainant was using his premises for running a beauty parlour and as such electricity was being consumed for NDS purposes, hence, complainant was rightly charged on the basis of non-domestic supply and his complaint was dismissed. This is how feeling aggrieved against the said order, complainant had filed appeal before the Haryana State Consumer Commission which has now been transferred to this Commission under the directions of Hon’ble National Commission.

6. When the case was fixed for hearing arguments, none appeared on behalf of the complainant. A perusal of the file shows that none appeared for complainant on the last two consecutive dates i.e. on 21.7.2009 and 27.3.2009. We have heard counsel for respondent and perused the record carefully. The learned counsel for respondent contended that the complainant was using the electricity connection for non-domestic supply purposes and at the time of checking he was found using load of 10.620 KW against the sanctioned load of 2.9KW, therefore, he was liable to pay Rs.61937/-. He further contended that according to the checking report the old meter showed a consumption of 96.5 units and the check meter showed a consumption of 98.4 units, meaning thereby that the meter of complainant was running slow but was within the permissible limits. He further submitted that as per ledger, the complainant had deposited Rs.49,000/- (Rs.24,000/- and Rs.25,000/- which were adjusted in his account on 24.12.1998 but the cheque for Rs.25,000/- stood dishonoured, so, the said amount was not credited.

7. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the entire matter and find that the complainant in his affidavit Ex.C-1 had admitted that his wife Roohi Attri started beauty parlour under the name and style of “Dee Vee Beauty & Health Clinic” in a tenanted premises, House No.435 in Old housing Board Colony, Karnal which was started in the year 1989 but when the landlord of the said premises got the same vacated, she put the sign board at her residence and started home service only and put the sign board on the residence. She had not explained what type of home service she was providing from her residence. Further when the premises of the complainant was checked on 9.10.2009 he was found using connected load of 10.620 KW against the sanctioned load of 2.9 KW.

8. In this view of our foregoing discussion, we find that the impugned order dated 2.4.2002 is well reasoned and justified in the given facts and circumstances of case. Consequently the appeal fails and stands dismissed.

Certified copies of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to records.