HVPN vs RAJ KUMAR

-THIS appeal received by transfer from Haryana State Commission has been filed against order dated 23. 12. 1999 by the District Consumer Forum, Hissar (Haryana) in complaint case No. 912 of 1996. The contextual facts in brief are as under : the father of complainant and he were subscribers of two electric connections bearing Nos. R-II/516 and R-II/517 at the premises SCF No. 93, Rajguru Market, Hissar. It has been averred that the meter reader did not record readings in the proper manner. The ADV party headed by Sh. Nehra found the seals to be intact. It is further been averred that due to the fact of both the connections having been supplied to same shop, the ADV advised the complainant to get the load on one connection only and accordingly the account No. R-2/517 was closed and the load was shifted to other connection bearing No. R-2/516. The complainant has averred that wrong bills were sent to him though he kept on depositing the part payment of the same and consequently an amount of Rs. 16350 was got deposited from him in excess of due amount. Further the complainant has stated that a bill for an amount of Rs. 64,828 was sent to him on 29. 9. 1996 and out of this Rs. 6,000 was deposited by him. It is alleged that electric connection No. R-2/517 was permanently disconnected on 25. 7. 1994 however due to wrong issuance of bills till 25. 11. 9696 a sum of Rs. 5,311. 71 paise has been charged in excess from the respondent/complainant. A prayer has been made to waive off the amount of Rs. 58,828 and a direction be given to the OPs to refund the amount of Rs. 21,656, in addition costs of litigation amounting to Rs. 20,000 have been claimed.

IN the written statement filed by the OPs, the preliminary objection taken is that complaint is not maintainable on the ground that the complainant has not come to the Court with clean hands. The complaint is stated to be bad in the eyes of law as arbitration clause has not been complied with before coming to the Forum. Further the complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint. It has been averred that the complainant has neither denied having two connections in one shop nor admitted the same, though he has averred that the electric connection was released on 6. 1. 1993 and first bill was raised in the month of July, 1993 and the meter reader reported the fact of meter having got burnt. The OPs have stated that the said meter remained in the premises of the complainant till July, 1994 after which the same was changed and a new meter was installed which showed consumption of 2489 units for the period 25. 4. 1994 to 10. 9. 1994. The appellant/op has averred that the average of one month was to be 1607 units and by-monthly consumption was 2504 units. Consequently the account of the complainant was overhauled for the period 6. 1. 1993 to July, 1994 on the basis of average consumption of 3214 for two months cycle, and an amount of Rs. 47,400. 61 was charged accordingly and the complainant is liable to pay the same. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the OPs not to charge the amount of Rs. 47,400. 61 with surcharge of Rs. 63,515. The Forum further directed the OPs to refund/adjust the amount of Rs. 21,662 and to pay the same with interest @ 12% p. a from the date of deposit till adjustment/payment. Rs. 1,100 were granted towards the costs of litigation.

Aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the present appeal has been filed by the OPs pleading inter alia that the Forum has failed to appreciate the facts of the case and committed an error to hold that overhauling of the account relating to period 1993 was wrong and on that ground the Forum came to the conclusion that demand of Rs. 47,400. 61 with surcharge of Rs. 63,515 could not be recovered by the appellant. The appellant has contended that the amount of Rs. 47,400. 61 was rightly charged on the basis of consumption shown by the new meter and the amounts were charged for the period when the meter remained burnt. However the Forum committed an error to hold that excess amount have been deposited by the respondent/complainant, though in fact, the amounts were raised in accordance with the consumption data shown in the new meter. The appellant has assailed the order of the District Forum in which the amount of Rs. 47,400. 61 was ordered to be waived off and refund of Rs. 21,662 was ordered to be adjusted/refunded with interest of 12%. The appellant has assailed the order of the District Forum giving relief to the complainant on the ground that the impugned order has been passed on conjectures and surmises and thus is liable to be set aside on that ground.

ADVERTING to the merit of appeal : a perusal of the entire case leads us to the conclusion that the District Forum has rightly appreciated the facts of the case as the appellant/op was deficient in services rendered to the complainant by way of overhauling the account of the year 1996 pertaining to the consumption for the year 1993. The appellant department has not been able to show any rules or regulations through which it could charge the respondent/complainant any amount beyond the period of six months. Further the District Forum rightly held as it stood proved from the documents, that amounts were deposited by respondent in excess and also a sum of Rs. 5,311. 71 was also paid in respect of the meter which was disconnected in the month of July, 1994, in spite of disconnection the bill for the period was sent upto 20. 9. 1994 showing the consumption of 78 units and afterwards it recorded reading of nil consumption. This belies the stand of appellant and gives credence to the version of the respondent/complainant that the account No. R-2/517 was disconnected in July, 94 and hence there could be no consumption from the same but the complainant was issued a bill and has deposited Rs. 5,311 in March and November, 1995 which the District Forum rightly ordered to be refunded. Thus we concur with the reasoning recorded by the District Forum that the appellants could not charge the amounts as levied on the respondent/complainant by issuing bills in respect of a meter which was disconnected. Further raising an amount of Rs. 21,662 for the period which was three years prior to the period of issuance, cannot be justified and the District Forum rightly ordered for the refund of the same. In the grounds of appeal, the appellant has nowhere been able to show how the impugned order is erroneous. The appellant has just reiterated its stand and has not been able to point out any error in the order of the District Forum except by averring that the order of the District Forum is based on conjectures and surmises. We hold that the order under challenge in this appeal does not suffer from any infirmity in view of the reasoning stated above we uphold the impugned order as we find no ground to interfere with the same. The appeal stands dismissed. The appeal is dismissed and the order of the District Forum allowing the complaint is upheld. The order of District Forum be complied within two months from the date of receipt of this order.

COPIES of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. Appeal dismissed.