State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P., Lucknow.

Appeal No. 452 of 2017

Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.,

Agra  through Adhishashi Abhiyanta, Vidyut

Vitran Khand, Bidhuna, Auraiya.                       ….Appellant. 

Versus

Itwari Lal s/o Kanhaiya Lal,

R/o Mohalla Naveen Basti Poorvi,  

Kasba Bidhuna, District Auraiya.                   ….Respondent.

Present:-

Hon’ble Justice Mr. Akhtar Husain Khan, President.

Mr. Manoj Kumar holding brief of

Mr. Deepak Mehrotra for appellant.

Mr. A. K. Pandey for respondent.

Date: 31.10.2019

JUDGMENT

          This is an appeal filed before this State Commission under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against judgment and order dated 19.10.2016 passed by District Consumer Forum, Auraiya in complaint no.162 of 2016, Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. vs. Itwari Lal, whereby District Consumer Forum has allowed complaint and passed order in Hindi which is extracted below:-

“परिवाद विपक्षी के विरूद्ध एक पक्षीय रूप से स्‍वीकार किया जाता है। उन्‍हें आदेशित किया जाता है कि 72855/- रू0 विद्युत बिल न तो कभी परिवादी से बसूले और न बसूली कराये। यह भी आदेशित किया जाता है कि 01-02-2010 के बाद वास्‍तविक उपभोग के आधार पर मीटर रीडिंग के अनुसार अथवा शासन द्वारा निर्धारित न्‍यूनतम दर पर बिना किसी दण्‍ड ब्‍याज अधिभार और विलम्‍ब शुल्‍क के परिवादी निर्णय के एक माह में विद्युत बिल उपलब्‍ध करायें तथा 1000/- रू0 खर्चा मुकदमा और मानसिक कष्‍ट के रूप में परिवादी के पक्ष में समायोजित करें।”

Feeling aggrieved by order passed by District Consumer Forum opposite party of complaint has filed this appeal.

          Ld. Counsel Mr. Manoj Kumar holding brief of Mr. Deepak Mehrotra appeared for appellant.

(2)

Ld. Counsel Mr. A.K. Pandey appeared for respondent.

          I have heard ld. Counsel for the parties and perused impugned judgment and order as well as records.

          In brief, relevant facts for determination of appeal are that the respondent/complainant has filed complaint before District Consumer Forum against opposite party/appellant wherein it has been stated that complainant has electric connection no.008899 with meter no.188/5167534. On 31.1.2010, respondent/complainant deposited Rs.906.00 for this connection. The previous arrear of Rs.398.00 was also included in this amount of Rs.906.00 paid by respondent/ complainant. Thereafter, no correct bill was received by respondent/ complainant. The meter of complainant was defective. Therefore,  IDF bills were sent to him but the bills sent to him were incorrect. IDF bill might have been sent only for 35 units per month. Thus, respondent/complainant is liable to pay Rs.15,525.00 only for 69 months whereas bill served by opposite party on him is for Rs.72,855.00.

          Feeling aggrieved, respondent/complainant has filed complaint against opposite party for redressal of his grievance.

          Perusal of impugned judgment passed by District Forum  shows that opposite party did not turn out despite sufficient service of notice. Consequently, District Forum has passed impugned judgment and order exparte against opposite party.

          It is contended by ld. Counsel for the appellant that notice was not served on appellant. Therefore, appellant could not appear before District Consumer Forum. The impugned judgment and order has been passed against appellant without affording opportunity of hearing.

(3)

          It is contended by ld. Counsel for the appellant that the respondent/complainant has not made any payment for more than 5 years. Rs.72,855.00 was outstanding against him.

          It is contended by ld. Counsel for the appellant that after exercising proper and suitable procedure, opposite party found that total arrear outstanding against the respondent/ complainant was Rs.1,04,777.00 till July, 2015. However, it was revised and Rs.68,064.00 was due till September, 2015.

          It is contended by ld. Counsel for the appellant that impugned order passed by District Consumer Forum is against law as well as evidence.   

          Ld. Counsel for the respondent opposed appeal and submitted that appellant did not turn out before District Consumer Forum despite sufficient service of notice. The District Forum has rightly proceeded exparte against appellant.  

          It is further submitted by ld. Counsel for the respondent that impugned order passed by District Forum is correct and no interference is justified.

          I have considered the submissions made by ld. Counsel for the parties.

          The impugned judgment and order passed District Consumer Forum which has been extracted above shows that District Consumer Forum has ordered appellant/opposite party to issue revised bill on the basis of actual consumption according to meter reading or on the basis of minimum rate fixed by electricity department without surcharge and interest.

Admittedly, appellant issued bill of Rs.1,04,777.00 till July, 2015 which was revised and again bill of Rs.68,064.00 was issued to respondent for the period extending till

(4)

September, 2015. There appears sufficient ground to hold that bill issued by appellant was erroneous.

Considering all facts and circumstances of the case, order passed by District Consumer Forum is quite appropriate on the facts and circumstances of the case. I found no sufficient ground for interference in the impugned order.

In view of above, appeal  is dismissed.

Parties shall bear their own costs.

Rs.500.00 deposited under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act in this appeal shall be remitted to District Consumer Forum alongwith interest accrued for disposal in accordance with impugned judgment.    

(Justice Akhtar Husain Khan)       

                                                              President                            

Jafri PA II

Court No.1