Haryana Vidhut Prasaran Nigam Ltd vs RAJ KUMAR

MRS. Vineeta Rai, Member-Haryana Vidhut Parsaran Nigam Ltd. (now DHBVNL), Petitioner herein, has filed the present revision petition against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in Appeal No. 274 of 2000 wherein Raj Kumar was the Respondent. The facts of the case are that the Respondent and his father were subscribers of two electricity connections Nos. R2-516 and R2-517 of the Petitioner/Nigam installed in their shop-cum-flat No. 83, Rajguru Market, Hisar. Respondent/Complainant alleged that the meter reader had not been recording the readings of the two meters and when these were checked by one Sh.Nehra, A.D.V. (an official of the Petitioner) the seals of both meters were intact. However, he advised that the load of both meters should be placed on one meter and accordingly Meter No. R2-517 was disconnected and its load was transferred to Meter No. R2-516 by replacing it with a larger meter Thereafter, according to the Respondent, Petitioner kept on sending wrong bills in respect of the newly installed single meter (R2-516) against which the Respondent represented although, he kept depositing part-payment of the same to avoid disconnection and consequently an amount of Rs. 16,350 was deposited by him in excess of the due amount. In respect of connection No. R2-517, Petitioner continued to send bills till 25.11.1995 even after its disconnection on 25.7.1994. Respondent was forced to deposit an amount of Rs. 5,312 in respect of this meter because Petitioner threatened to disconnect Connection No. R2-516 if the money for Connection No. R2-517 was not paid. Since, Petitioner did not heed the legitimate complaints of the Respondent and kept asking him to pay amounts which were not due, Respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum requesting that the Petitioner be directed to correct the amount of bill in respect of Connection No. R2-516, not to charge amount of Rs. 58,828 being demanded vide Bill issued on 29.9.1996, refund of excess amount of Rs. 16,350 with interest in respect of Connection No. R2-516 and to refund Rs. 5,312 in respect of Connection No. R2-517 and pay Rs. 20,000 as damages with costs.

PETITIONER has dented the above contentions and stated that Connection No. R2-516 was released to the Respondent on 6.1.1993 and the first bill was issued in July, 1993 with the report of the Meter Reader that the meter installed in the premises had got burnt. On 25.7.1994, the said burnt meter was changed and a new meter was installed and on the basis of the consumption shown in the new meter, Respondent was charged Rs. 47,400 for the period from 6.1.1993 to July, 1994 on the basis of consumption of 3214 units bi-monthly. Further, the electricity consumption of the Respondent after installing the single new meter was 2000 to 3000 units bimonthly. Thus, the amount was rightly charged based on readings of the meter.

THE District Forum after hearing both parties allowed the complaint by observing as follows: "The complainant has enclosed the consumption data prepared on the basis of electric bills and also enclosed the bills in respect of both the electric connections. The consumption data shown by the complainant in respect of electric connection No. R2-516 deals with the consumption data intimated by the respondent. In the account of electric connection No. R2-516, the complainant has mentioned in the consumption data that he has deposited Rs. 16,348.82 in excess. The details of every bill have been given. All the time, mostly the complainant has deposited excess amount. Only on three occasions, the complainant has deposited lesser amount to the extent of Rs. 277.71, Rs. 43.08 and Rs. 34.28 whereas he has paid excess amount on as many as 8 occasions in different bills for the period 7/94 to 9/96, The complainant has also proved by Annexure in respect of electric Connection No. R2-517 in which it is clearly mentioned that the complainant has paid a sum of Rs. 5,311.71 as the electric connection was disconnected in the month of July, 1994. The respondent has sent the bill upto 20.9.1994 for 78 units but thereafter the reading has been shown as Nil. This proves contention of the complainant that electric connection No. R2-517 was disconnected in the month of July, 94 and from September onwards no units were consumed, whereas the complainant has deposited Rs. 5311.71 in the month of 3/95 and 11/95. Moreover, the overhauling of account in the year 1996 relating to the period 1993 is absolutely wrong and incorrect. Thus it is proved by the complainant that demand of Rs. 47,400.61 with surcharge of Rs. 63,515 cannot be recovered from the complainant and the complainant is entitled to refund of Rs. 21,662 (16350 + 5312) from the respondent."

THE District Forum, therefore, directed the Petitioner not to charge the amount of Rs. 47,400.61 with surcharge of Rs. 63,515 from the Respondent/Complainant and also refund/adjust Rs. 21,662 (Rs. 16,350 + Rs. 5,312) with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of deposit till payment/adjustment and Rs. 1,100 as litigation cost.

AGGRIEVED by this order, Petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission which dismissed the same by upholding the order of the District Forum in toto. Hence, the present revision petition. Counsel for Petitioner was present. None appeared on behalf of the Respondent. However, since the service is complete, the case is being decided ex parte.

COUNSEL for Petitioner essentially reiterating the position taken by the Petitioner before the Fora below, stated that in fact after taking into account the surcharge, the amount pending against the Respondent was actually much higher totaling to Rs. 2,92,572. However, the Respondent availed of the Petitioner/Department''s Surcharge Waiver Scheme, 2002 wherein the surcharge was waived if the consumers deposited the full principal amount. Since, Respondent had voluntarily accepted the Scheme, he cannot now seek refund of the rightly charged amount in respect of his electricity connections.

WE have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and have gone through the evidence on record. It has not been disputed by the Petitioner that meter Connection No. R2-517 had been disconnected on 25.7.1994. Therefore, the bill raised against this meter upto 25.11.1995 amounting to Rs. 5,311 is obviously wrongly charged since it was in respect of a meter which had been undeniably disconnected. Regarding the excess amount of Rs. 16,348.82 for the period 6.1.1993 to July, 1994 in respect of Connection No. R2-516, the District Forum has after examining all the bills on record concluded that except on three occasions when the Respondent deposited a lesser sum amounting to a total of Rs. 355, he had paid excess amount on eight occasions. We see no reason to dispute this fact since this conclusion has been reached by the District Forum based on the actual bills produced before it in evidence. Regarding the amount of Rs. 47,400.61 raised against the Respondent, we note that according to the Petitioner the amount was calculated on the basis of average consumption of 1607 units per month for the period from 6.1.1993 to July, 1994. Petitioner has not been able to explain on what basis this consumption of 1607 units has been arrived because it has also been stated by them as quoted by the State Commission in its order that the bi-monthly consumption was 2504 units which would make the average consumption of one month as 1252 units and not 1607 units. Counsel for Petitioner was specifically asked by us to explain how this higher average amount was worked out and charged which he was unable to explain. Under these circumstances, in our revisional jurisdiction, we see no reason to differ with the conclusion reached by the Fora below being Courts of fact and based on the actual bills produced in evidence before them. Therefore, as ordered by the District Forum, we direct the Petitioner not to charge the amount of Rs. 47,400.61 with surcharge of Rs. 63,515 from the Respondent and also refund/adjust Rs. 21,662 (16350 + 5312) with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of deposit till payment/adjustment against the future bills/refund to the Respondent along with litigation cost of Rs. 1,100.

THE revision petition is dismissed on the above terms. Revision dismissed.