SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER (OP), DHBVNL vs Rajinder Prasad

THIS appeal received by transfer from Haryana State Commission, under the orders of Hon''ble National Commission, has been filed against order dated 17.1.2001 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon in Complaint Case No. 2266 of 17.12.1998. The contextual facts in brief are as under.

THE respondent/complainant is a subscriber of appellant/OP for an electricity connection vide meter bearing No. 141/1011. As per averments, the bills have been paid regularly and no amount was due towards him. THE respondent/complainant has alleged that a bill dated 27.10.1998 for an amount of Rs. 6,608 for the previous bi-monthly cycle was issued and the same was paid by him under protest. THE respondent/complainant is further aggrieved against the issuance of the bills for an amount of Rs. 5,508 and Rs. 2,712 as the same has been alleged to be arbitrary and illegally issued though all the amounts due to him have stood paid. THE respondent/complainant was compelled to pay the aforesaid bill of Rs. 6,608 because of threat of disconnection and hence liable to be refunded to him. THE respondent/complainant has also pleaded that he is a disabled person and does not have anybody to help him. However, due to aforesaid arbitrary issuance of bills, he had to visit the officials of the appellant/OP department, a number of times requesting them to refund the amount of Rs. 5,508. Applications dated 28.10.1998 and 26.11.1998 were made to the appellant department, however needful was not done which caused immense inconvenience, harassment and mental agony to the complainant because of the above stated deficient services provided by the OP department. THE complainant has prayed for a direction for deletion of amount of Rs. 2,712 from the bill dated 27.10.1998 for refund of Rs. 5,508 paid under protest in the bill dated 7.11.1997 and a direction to the OP not to disconnect his electric supply during the pendency of the complaint. Rs. 10,000 have been claimed towards harassment, mental agony, etc. In the reply filed by the OP department, the preliminary objection taken is that complaint is false, mischievous and an attempt at abuse, the process of law and there being no deficiency in service and thus is liable to be dismissed.

In reply on merits, the factum of electricity connection stands admitted. It is stated that during the checking of the premises, the complainant was found using the residential premises for the godown of the tent house business which he is running. Due to above stated use of premises the non-domestic tariff was applied for the period of December 93 to August 2005. Consequent to this change in the rate of tariff, a sum of Rs. 2,712 was chargeable from him and the same was added to the bill. It is further averred that since the house is being used for non-domestic purpose, the tariff has accordingly being levied and he is liable to pay the same. Other averments of the complaint have been denied. The prayer has been made to dismiss the complaint.

IN evidence, the complainant has filed photocopy of the bills, photocopy of the two applications dated 28.10.1998 and 26.11.1998 and photocopy of disability certificate whereas the appellant HVPN, has filed handwritten document i.e. brief history statement of A/c No. FDB-141 at page 33 and photocopy of statement. The District Forum, Gurgaon directed the OP to correct the impugned bill in accordance with the actual consumption and issue the amount due without adding any surcharge. It was further directed that excess amount if already paid was to be adjusted in his account and the complaint was accepted without any order as to costs.

AGGRIEVED against the order of the District Forum, the present appeal has been filed pleading inter alia that the Forum failed to appreciate that since the premises were used for commercial purpose, as per rules, the respondent/complainant was liable to pay as per rates applicable to non-domestic tariff. The allegations of deficiency cannot be sustained on account of the fact that the impugned bill was issued on the basis of consumption shown by the meter. Hence, the respondent/complainant was charged accordingly and as per rules and regulations of the department and is liable to remit the amounts as per bills issued to him. The order of the District Forum has been assailed on the ground that in spite of all the facts and record placed before it, the Forum failed to appreciate the same and allowed the complaint which was vexatious and frivolous. The order of the District Forum has been assailed on the ground as the Forum came to the conclusion the demand of impugned amount was not justified and it held the appellant department deficient in services provided to the consumer and consequent to this finding of deficiency against the appellant, the District Forum restrained the appellant from charging the amount due from the respondent/complainant. The appellant has contended that the District Forum has not appreciated the facts of the case rightly and allowed the complaint in an erroneous manner. A prayer has been made to dismiss the appeal with special costs and to set aside the impugned order. Adverting to the merits of appeal : a perusal of pleadings of the parties, record of the case, impugned order and the grounds of appeal brings us to the conclusion that the District Forum has rightly directed the appellant department to correct the impugned bill. The reason for this view of ours is based on the fact that the prime ground on which the appellant department has issued the bill was that the complainant was using the premises for non-domestic purpose. At page No. 33 of the record of the District Forum, the OPs have produced one handwritten document in which it is mentioned that- "the connection is taken for domestic purpose in the house. The audit party has charged the amount Rs. 2,712 on account of change of tariff as the material of tent house was lying in his house. So the FD-1011/new account No. FDB-141 was charged. The commercial rate w.e.f. 12/93 to 8/95 vide SC AR which photocopy attached and tariff of DS is being charged since 8/95 to date." It is pertinent to mention that this document has not been signed by the consumer nor does it beer the signature of any other witness to prove that the premises in question were actually being used for non-domestic purpose so as to justify the levy of non-domestic charges. More so, in the instant case we are also guided by the fact there is certificate issued by AIIMS, New Delhi certifying that the complainant in question is suffering from 100% disability being a case of fracture D-9 with traumatic paraplegia having bladder bowel involvement. In the specific circumstances of this case, it can also be inferred that on account of disability, some belongings of the tent house were lying there in the house in question. However there is nothing to prove on record through any document that his house was being regularly used for the alleged purpose of storage of tent house items. Consequent to above facts, we hold that the District Forum was right in its approach in giving relief to the consumer and we have no hesitation to uphold the order of the District Forum as OP has not been able to prove the allegation of misuse of the premises in question through any cogent evidence. In view of above discussion, the impugned order of the District Forum is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. The appellant/OP department is directed to comply with the order of the District Forum within one month from the receipt of the same. Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. Appeal dismissed.