Appeal case No.523/2002/Hry/RBT/1664/2008

HVPN through its Sub-Divisional Officer, S/U,S/Divn., UHBVN, Kaithal



…Appellant
Versus
Sh.Bhanna Ram son of Shri Kundan, R/o village Kichhan, Tehsil and District Kaithal.
...Respondent

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

order dated 13.12.2001 passed by Consumer Disputes

Redressal Forum- Kaithal



Present: Sh.Naridner Sura, advocate for the appellant

Sh.Naveen Sheoran, advocate for respondent.

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

Maj.Gen.S.P.Kapoor (Retd.),Member


JUDGMENT

2.12.2009

Justice Pritam Pal, President


1. This appeal by Opposite parties is directed against the order dated 13.12.2001 passed by District Consumer Forum-Kaithal whereby complaint case No.96/1999 filed by Sh.Bhanna Ram - respondent/complainant was allowed in the following terms ;

“From the perusal of record and arguments advanced by the parties, it is clear that the respondents are not issuing the bills on actual meter reading and they are issuing the bills on M.M.C basis, so, we come to the conclusion that when meter is O.K. and is giving actual consumption, in that case, the respondents are only entitled to issue the bill on actual meter reading and not on the basis of M.M.C. So, the respondents are directed to overhaul the account of the complainant from the date of installation of the said connection and no surcharge will be levied on the balance amount and in this regard, revised bill be issued within one month from the date of order. The complainant is also directed to pay the bill according to the revised bill within seven days from the issuance of revised bill.”

Further application for initiating contempt of court proceedings filed by the complainant was also dismissed.

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

2. Briefly the facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant Sh.Bhanna Ram was the consumer of OPs vide A/c No.RK-2/977 for the last 14/15 years. The complainant was paying the bills regularly but in the month of January,1998 the OPs issued a bill of Rs.5285/-. The complainant approached the S.D.O. Kaithal for correction of the bill and the said SDO ordered to deposit Rs.3000/- which the complainant deposited on 23.1.1998. The complainant thereafter filed an application with OPs requesting for erection of poles and changing the transformer because the complainant was not getting sufficient electric supply for the functioning of atta Chakki. It was further alleged that the bill amounting to Rs.12982/- sent in the month of was January,1999 was illegal as OPs were charging the bill on average basis and not on the basis of actual consumption. Complainant requested OPs to charge him as per consumption of accurate reading of the meter but to no effect. Hence, alleging deficiency in service, complainant filed complaint before the District Consumer Forum.

3. On the other hand, the case of Opposite parties before the District Forum was that the bill of Rs.5285/- in the month of January,1998 was rightly issued and complainant was allowed to make part payment of Rs.3000/-. It was further stated the complainant had not made any application to the OPs regarding change of transformer and erection of poles and the bill of Rs.12982/- in January,1999 was rightly issued. OPs were providing sufficient electric supply to the complainant and the bills were being issued on minimum consumption basis as the complainant had entered into an agreement with OPs to make payment on the basis of minimum consumption. The consumption/reading shown by the meter of the complainant was less than the minimum consumption. The connected load of the complainant was 12 K.W,so, he was liable to pay Rs.720/- per month on the basis of minimum consumption with effect from 15.6.1998. It was pleaded that the complainant was issued bill rightly and as such he was not entitled to any relief and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4. The District Consumer Forum after going through the evidence and hearing the learned counsel for parties, allowed the complaint as indicated in the opening part of this judgment. This is how feeling aggrieved opposite parties had filed appeal before the Haryana State Consumer commission which has now been transferred to this Commission under directions of the Hon’ble National Commission.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the file carefully. The only point raised on behalf of the appellant is that the District Forum has not appreciated the terms and conditions of the agreement entered into between the parties at the time of getting electric connection for running atta chakki machine. In that behalf he submitted that in fact there was an agreement between the parties that the complainant/consumer would make payment on the basis of minimum monthly consumption and not on the basis of actual consumption in a month. Here in the instant case it is apparent that in both the disputed bills of January,1998 and January,1999 the actual consumption of electric power was less than the minimum consumption, so, on that count and keeping in view the terms of the agreement, the bill was issued to the complainant on the basis of minimum consumption of units. However, the District Consumer Forum while passing the impugned order ignored the agreement entered into between the parties and gave its own finding that when the meter was OK then the bill was to be charged on the basis of actual consumption. This observation made by the learned District Forum in fact is contrary to the terms and conditions of the agreement.

6. Thus, we do not find any illegality in the aforesaid disputed bills which were based on minimum month consumption basis . In the result, this appeal succeeds and consequently complaint filed by respondent/complainant is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

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