BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.

                                                            Complaint No.: 459 of 2013.

                                                            Date of Institution: 23.10.2013.

                                                            Date of Decision: 7.4.2015.

Chhalu Ram son of Shri Surjan, resident of village Sherla, tehsil Behal, district Bhiwani.

                                                                     ….Complainant.

                                  Versus.

1. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Vidhyut Nagar, Hisar through its Managing Director.
2. The Executive Engineer (AGM) “OP” Division, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Bhiwani.
3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Sub Division, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Behal, district Bhiwani.

…...Respondents.

                 COMPLAINT UNDER SECTIONS 12 AND 13 OF

                 THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Sitting: -    Shri B.D. Yadav, President,

                 Shri Baraj Singh, Member,

                 Smt. Anita Sheoran, Member,

Present:    Shri K.K.Malik, Adv. for the complainant.  

Shri Rajbir Singh, Advocate for respondents.

O R D E R

                 The case of the complainant in brief, is that he is having an electricity connection bearing No.SL-1D-0015 and has been making payment of electricity charges regularly, hence he is consumer qua respondents. The complainant alleged that he uses the electricity for a limited period and consumes about 70 to 80 units bimonthly but in the month of March, 2013 the respondents have issued a bill of 5045 units which is wrong, illegal, arbitrary, against law and facts and he is not liable to pay the same. The complainant further alleged that on receipt of above said bills he visited the office of respondents and requested to rectify the same but they did not pay any heed. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of respondents and as such, he had to file the present complaint.

2.               Respondents on appearance filed written statement alleging therein that the premises of the complainant were checked on 14.12.2013 and the connected load found to be 2.102 KW against the sanctioned load of 2 KWs and the reading was found as 14185. It is submitted that the checking report was prepared at the spot but the complainant refused to sign the same.  It is further submitted that as per record the complainant had made payment of electricity bills but prior to checking the meter was showing less consumption/reading. So, an amount of Rs.5694/- was charged in the electricity bill on account of excess load found at the time of checking. Therefore, the bill issued to the complainant is correct and he is liable to pay the same with the Nigam. In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs. 

3.               Both the parties filed their duly sworn affidavits to prove their respective versions.

4.               We have heard learned counsel for both the parties at length.

5.              After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and having gone through the material available on record, we are of the considered view that the complaint of the complainant deserve acceptance as there is deficiency in service on the part of respondents.  It is admitted fact that electricity connection bearing No.SL-1D-0015 stands in the name of complainant. Now question arises whether the respondents are entitled to recover the bill of 5045 units from the complainant or not?. The sought answer is “No” because the respondents have pleaded in the written statement that the premises of the complainant were checked on 14.12.2013 and the connected load was found to be 2.102 KW against the sanctioned load of 2 KWs and as per record the complainant had made payment of electricity bills prior to checking for less consumption/reading being shown by the meter reader in the bills in collusion with the complainant. In our view, this version of the respondents is without basis because from the perusal of record no such checking report has been placed on record. It was the duty of the respondents to produce the checking report on record but they failed to do so. On the other hand, the complainant has been successfully proved his case by placing on record Annexure C2 to C14 showing the consumption/reading being consumed by the complainant. Therefore, the bill issued in the month of March, 2013 is excessive and is hereby set aside and the respondents are not entitled to recover the same from the complainant. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, the complaint of the complainant is allowed with costs and the respondents are directed: -

1-     Not to recover the disputed bill amount from the complainant.

2.      To get the meter checked from Laboratory and to rectify the bill on the basis of units actually consumed by the complainant and to adjust the amount, if any, deposited by the complainant.

3.      To pay Rs. 2200/- as litigation charges.

                 The compliance of the order shall be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.   Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.

Dated: 7.4.2015.                                  President,

                                                   District Consumer Disputes

                                                   Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.

(Anita Sheoran)          (Balraj Singh)   

Member.                      Member.