DELHI VIDYUT BOARD vs COL. GURCHARANJIT SINGH

THIS appeal is directed against the order of district Forum (East), Sainik Enclave, Delhi, dated 7.12.2000, passed in Complaint Case No. 262/1999, entitled Col. Gurcharanjit Singh v. The Finance Officer, Delhi Vidyut Board.

BRIEFLY stated, the case of the complainant, before the District Forum, was that he being the registered consumer of electricity through K. No. JM 611 1421115, had received a bill for August, 1999 showing arrears of Rs. 1,151.33 whereas the earlier bills had been duly paid by the respondent. Furthermore, the bill in question had been raised by the appellant on provisional basis and did not reflect the actual meter reading. Accordingly, the respondent had approached the concerned officials of the appellant for the correction of the said bill. But since the appellant failed to rectify the same the respondent was forced to deposit the disputed bill as well as the bill for the month of September, 1999. The respondent even thereafter continued to pursue the matter with the concerned officials of the appellant but no relief was given to the respondent. The respondent, therefore, filed a complaint before the District Forum praying for directions to the appellant to refund the amount, overcharged in the bill of August, 1999 together with interest @ 24% per annum and further directions to the appellant to send the bills in terms of the actual meter reading and not on provisional basis. The respondent also claimed Rs. 2,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as cost of litigation. The stand of the O.P. in its reply/written version, filed before the District Forum, was that the electricity bill raised in September, 1996 included misuse charges for the period 15.5.1992 to 9.9.1996, on account of the fact that the domestic connection was being misused by the respondent for commercial purposes. Furthermore, the respondent had filed a separate complaint in respect of the said bill which had been decided in favour of the respondent by the District Forum and an appeal against the said order was pending before the State Commission. It was further stated on behalf of the appellant that the said bill had been paid by the respondent in the month of July, 1999 and the adjustment of credit of Rs. 74,716.39 was to be given provisionally to the respondent subject to the outcome of the decision of the appeal pending before the State Commission.

The learned Counsel Forum on the basis of the material on record held that the bill raised by the appellant for the month of August, 1999 showing arrears of Rs. 1,151.133 was erroneous and as such the said amount was liable to be refunded to the respondent together with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of receipt of the amount by the appellant till the date of refund of the same, together with compensation of Rs. 1,000/- and cost of litigation amounting to Rs. 250.

AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid order, the appellant/DVB has preferred the present appeal before this Commission. We have carefully perused the documents/material placed on record as well as the written submissions filed on behalf of the respondent Col. Gurcharanjit Singh. We have also heard the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties. The sole contention of the appellant in the present appeal is that the learned District Forum had erred in observing that the appellant had overcharged a sum of Rs. 1,151.33 from the respondent, shown as arrears in the bill for the month of August, 1999. The appellant has also annexed a copy of the statement of account in support of its contention. The respondent on the other hand has placed on record the impugned bill, a perusal of which shows that the bill which was raised for the month of July, 1999 was for Rs. 1,310/- and not for Rs. 2,444.32 as reflected in the statement of account. Furthermore, the bill for August, 1999 shows the previous reading as 65040 whereas in the preceding bill for July, 1999 the meter reading shown is 04130 and is a provisional bill. Therefore, there is discrepancy in the meter reading shown in the impugned bill for August, 1999. Accordingly, it appears that the statement of account placed on record by the appellant is also incorrect. Furthermore, the explanation being offered by the appellant for the inclusion of arrears in the impugned bill finds nomination in the written statement filed by the appellant before the District Forum which relates to an entirely different controversy. Therefore, the present appeal appears to be an after thought and as such is not maintainable. Accordingly, the same is dismissed with costs. Cost fixed at Rs. 1,000/- to be paid by the appellant to the respondent along with the amount awarded vide impugned order within 30 days of the date of the receipt of this order. The above mentioned appeal stands disposed of in above terms. Appeal dismissed.