State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Din Dayal Soni vs Dhbvnl on 12 February, 2018
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No : 742 of 2017 Date of Institution: 14.06.2017 Date of Decision : 12.02.2018 Deen Dayal Soni, Haluwas Gate, Circular Road, Bhiwani. Appellant-Complainant Versus 1. Managing Director, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Hisar. 2. Executive Engineer, Sub Urban Division, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Bhiwani. 3. Sub Divisional Officer, City Division, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Division No.2, Bhiwani. Respondents-Opposite Parties CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President. Mr. Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.
Argued by: None for appellant.
Shri Kamal Sharma, Advocate proxy on behalf of Shri B.S. Negi, Advocate for respondent.
O R D E R BALBIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER This complainant's appeal is directed against the order dated May 05th, 2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhiwani (for short 'the District Forum') in Consumer Complaint No.312 of 2013.
2. Deen Dayal Soni -complainant (appellant herein) resident of Circular Road, Bhiwani was provided a domestic electricity connection bearing account No.HDID-0060 in his residential premises by Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam (DHBVN)-Opposite Parties. As per version of the complainant, regarding the period from February 18th, 2010 up to February 11th, 2012 he received wrong electricity bills showing excess consumption and he had to deposit these electricity bills under compelling circumstances. The complainant requested the opposite parties-appellants time and again for correction of his electricity bills but there was no response from the opposite side. Later on the complainant requested the opposite parties in writing to change the defective electricity meter installed in his premises and to install a check meter. The complainant requested to overhaul his electricity bill account after installation of check meter. Due to non-payment of these electricity bills, the electricity connection was also disconnected for want of payment of an amount of Rs.20,203/- vide bill issued on April 30th, 2013. The complainant and his family had to face un-necessary harassment due to fault of the opposite parties.
3. The complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to restore the electricity connection provided to the complainant; to install a new electricity meter of good quality; to overhaul the electricity account of the complainant; to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant on account of un-necessary harassment, mental agony and an amount of Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.
4. The opposite parties in their written version have taken plea that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form and that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint. As per version of the opposite parties, the electricity meter installed in the premises of the complainant became defective/dead stop in the month of November, 2011. The electricity bills from the month of December, 2011 up to the month of April, 2012 were issued to the complainant on average basis but these electricity bills were also not deposited by the complainant except electricity bill issued in the month of February, 2012. The electricity meter was changed in the month of May, 2012 and thereafter on the request of the complainant a check meter was also installed but as per check meter, there was no difference in the consumption of units. After installation of check meter, the electricity account of the complainant was overhauled. Considering the consumption of three electricity bills from the month of December, 2012 up to April, 2013 showing base reading as 259 units, an amount of Rs.3808/- was credited in the account of the complainant.
5. When the complainant filed the present complaint before the District Forum, directions were given to the opposite parties not to disconnect supply of electricity if consumer deposits 50% amount of the electricity bills within seven days and make payment of the future current electricity bills regularly. Despite that order since the month of August, 2012, the complainant did not pay the electricity bills regularly. The electricity check meter has also been installed and the electricity bill account has also been overhauled. In fact, the complainant is habitual of making complaints in other departments including DHBVNL. The opposite parties had also written a letter dated December 24th, 2013 to the complainant for depositing current electricity bills amounting to Rs.10,779/- up to the month of December, 2012 but the complainant did not deposit that amount. The complainant is not entitled to any relief as prayed in the complaint. The opposite parties have prayed that the complaint be dismissed with cost.
6. After going through the evidence and hearing arguments, vide impugned order dated May 05th, 2017, the complaint filed by the complainant was partly allowed. The opposite parties were directed to further overhaul the account of the complainant regarding the subsequent period and to issue fresh electricity bills after overhauling the account without any surcharge.
7. Aggrieved with the impugned order dated May 05th, 2017 passed by the learned District Forum, the complainant-appellant has filed the present First Appeal No.742 of 2017 which was received by post with a prayer to set aside the impugned order and to grant relief to the complainant as prayed in the complaint alongwith an amount of Rs.60,000/- on account of un-necessary harassment, mental agony and litigation expenses.
8. The complainant himself filed the present appeal in person and did not engage any lawyer. The appeal was also received by post. When notice was issued to the appellant, he appeared on October 31st, 2017 and placed on the file his written submissions with a request that the appeal be decided on merits after considering his written submissions as it is not possible for him to remain present on each date of hearing due to old age. Thereafter, today on date fixed none appeared on behalf of the appellant.
9. We have gone through the written submissions already on the file submitted on behalf of the appellant and have heard learned counsel for the respondents-opposite parties and perused the case file.
10. It is admitted fact that the complainant Deen Dayal Soni is having a domestic electricity connection bearing account No.HDID-0060 in his residential premises provided by the opposite parties-DHBVN. As per version of the complainant regarding the period from February 18th, 2010 up to February 11th, 2012, he received wrong electricity bills showing excess consumption and he had to deposit these electricity bills under compelling circumstances. The complainant requested the opposite parties time and again for correction of his electricity bills to change the defective electricity meter to install a new electricity meter and to overhaul his electricity account bill. It is also admitted fact that prior to the month of February, 2012, the complainant has made payment of electricity bills. The complainant did not make payment of the electricity bill issued in the month of February, 2012. The electricity meter earlier installed in the premises of the complainant in the month of November, 2011 had become defective and the same was replaced with new electricity meter in the month of May, 2012. The complainant did not make payment of the electricity bill in the month of February, 2012. Considering request of the complainant, a check electricity meter was also installed but as per check meter report, there was no difference in the consumption of units as per reading in the check electricity meter and the electricity meter already in existence. Thereafter, considering the consumption of three electricity bills from the month of December, 2012 up to April, 2013 showing base reading as 259 units, an amount of Rs.3808/- was credited in the account of the complainant. It is also admitted fact that the opposite parties restored the electricity connection in the name of the complainant as per directions given by the District Forum although the complainant did not deposit 50% amount of the electricity bills in time. The electricity bill amounting to Rs.10,779/- up to the month of December, 2012 was not deposited by the complainant.
11. It will be pertinent to mention here that the complainant placed on the file photo copies of few documents/electricity bills, receipts etc but neither affidavit of the complainant nor any other document has been tendered in his evidence by the complainant. After filing of the present complaint also during pendency of the complaint and the present appeal, the complainant continued writing letters and few applications to the opposite parties as well as other authorities. We want to make it clear that in this case findings are required to be given only regarding the claim of the complainant as prayed in the complaint regarding the period prior to the date of filing of the present complaint. The complainant if has any grievance regarding any wrongful act done by the opposite parties in connection with electricity bills etc, he has option to initiate separate proceedings. During proceedings of a complaint case, time and again applications placed on the file cannot be considered as part of the pleadings unless the facts mentioned in these applications are added in the complaint after seeking amendment. In fact, these applications and letters of correspondence create more confusion. The opposite parties also did not tender any document in evidence. But we feel much discussion is not needed on this point as the complainant as well as the opposite parties did not desire at belated stage also that they were willing to get the documents tendered in their evidence. Anyhow it will be in the interest of justice that documents placed on the file and not tendered in evidence, be read in evidence so that correct findings may be given at the time of decision of this case.
12. The relief claimed in this complaint case has been mentioned in detail in paragraph No.3 of this order. Relief granted by the learned District Forum vide impugned order dated May 05th, 2017, is mentioned in paragraph No.4 of this order. The total relief claimed in the complaint has not been granted. The complaint has been partly allowed directing the opposite parties to further overhaul the account of the complainant regarding the subsequent period and to issue fresh electricity bills after overhauling the account without any surcharge. It means the opposite parties are required to overhaul the electricity account of the complainant regarding the period after the electricity account was earlier overhauled by the opposite parties after installation of the check meter as detailed in earlier part of this order. From the memorandum of appeal placed on the file, it appears that the complainant is also satisfied with the relief granted while passing the impugned order dated May 05th, 2017.
13. As mentioned in prayer clause, the only grievance of the appellant-complainant remains that no compensation amount has been awarded to him and requested that the opposite parties be directed to pay an amount of Rs.60,000/- to the complainant on account of un-necessary harassment, mental agony and litigation expenses. The opposite parties also appear to be satisfied with the impugned order dated May 05th, 2017 passed by the learned District Forum as the opposite parties did not prefer to file appeal against the impugned order. In this situation, much discussion is not needed of time to time applications filed by the complainant during pendency of the complaint and letters of correspondence which were written to the opposite parties and other authorities.
14. As the only grievance of the appellant is regarding compensation amount, after close perusal of the record on the file it does not appear to be a case of un-necessary harassment and mental agony to the complainant by the opposite parties. Earlier as and when this fact came to the notice of the opposite parties that the electricity meter had become defective, the electricity meter was replaced. Thereafter, considering request of the complainant, check electricity meter was also installed but this version of the complainant was not found correct that the electricity meter already in existence is showing excess electricity consumption in terms of units. Reading of the electricity check meter and reading of the electricity meter already in existence regarding the same period was same. Not only this, after installation of the electricity check meter, the electricity account of the complainant was overhauled. Considering the consumption of three electricity bills from December, 2012 up to April, 2013 showing base reading as 259 units, an amount of Rs.3808/- was credited in the account of the complainant. The earlier electricity bill dated December 24th, 2013 amounting to Rs.10,779/- was also not deposited by the complainant. Thereafter, the learned District Forum had given directions to deposit 50% of the bill amount before restoration of the electricity connection. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that problem did not arise merely due to faults and mistakes of the opposite parties. The complainant also did not pay electricity bills regularly.
15. Keeping in mind all these circumstances, we feel it will not be justified to award compensation on account of un-necessary harassment, mental agony and litigation expenses as prayed in the grounds of appeal and the complaint. We feel considering the facts and circumstances of the case, already relief has been granted to the complainant more than needed and the complainant should feel satisfied.
16. As per discussion above in detail, we find no illegality in the impugned order dated May 05th, 2017 passed by the learned District Forum. Hence, findings of the learned District Forum stand affirmed and the appeal stands dismissed.
Announced:
12.02.2018 (Balbir Singh) Judicial Member (Nawab Singh) President CL