State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Hseb vs Ram Chander on 8 July, 2009
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
UNION TERRITORY,
CHANDIGARH.
Appeal case No.1861/2002/RBT/1545/2008
Date of decision :8.7.2009
1.
Haryana State Electricity Board through its Additional Executive Engineer, City Sub-Division,
Atlas Road, District Sonepat.
2.
Executive Engineer, City Division, HSEB, Sector-14,
Sonepat.
3.
HSEB, Shakti Bhawan, Panchkula through its Secretary Appellants
Versus
Sh.Ram Chander son of Sh.Udmi Ram, resident of village Behalgarh, Tehsil
& District Sonepat.
-- Respondent
Appeal U/s 15 of Consumer Protection
Act,1986 against
order dated 24.7.2002 passed by Consumer Disputes
Redressal
Forum-Sonepat.
Present: Sh.Anil
Gahlawat,,advocate for appellants.
BEFORE : Honble
Mr.Justice Pritam Pal, President
Maj.Gen.S.P.Kapoor (Retd.),Member
JUDGMENT
8.7.2009 Justice Pritam Pal, President
1. This appeal by Haryana State Electricity Board etc. is directed against the order dated 24.7.2002 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat (hereinafter to be referred as District Consumer Forum) whereby complaint filed by Sh.Ram Chander respondent was allowed partly and consequently appellants were directed to withdraw the electricity bill of Rs.17,591/- payable upto 6.5.98 and the same time they were also directed to overhaul the account of respondent for the period from November,97 till the date of disputed period on the basis of taking the reading of consumed units for six months onwards from the date of replacement of defective meter . Further respondent was also granted Rs.500/- as litigation expenses.
2.. In nutshell the facts culminating to the commencement of this appeal may be recapitulated thus ;
Sh.Ram Chander, complainant/respondent (hereinafter to be referred as complainant) is consumer of Opposite parties/appellants(hereinafter to be referred as OPs) vide electricity power connection bearing No.FP-3/41. He was making payment of the electricity power consumed regularly. In the month of May,97 OPs had changed the working power connection meter installed at the flour mill of the complainant as per their new policy and for that they also charged Rs.1000/- for replacement of meter from the complainant vide SCR No.286/35/94 dated 16.5.97 and MCO No.12/48 but the meter which was changed became defective then OPs started issuing bills on average basis which were also deposited by the complainant but he made a complaint for the change of that defective meter and also to overhaul his account. In that behalf a written representation was also made on 13.11.97 but OPs issued bill for a sum of Rs.5120/- again on average basis payable upto 3.4.98. Same was then also deposited vide receipt No.276 book NO.18446. However, again in the latter bill this amount of Rs.5120/- which had already been deposited was included and total sum of Rs.11916.30p was then demanded through the disputed bill which was to be paid by 6th May,98. All these acts on the part of OPs have been termed as deficiency in service. In the reply it was admitted that electricity meter installed at the premises of complainant was dead since 1997. However, the same was later on replaced. It was also admitted that OPs had issued bills on the average basis. It was further submitted before the District Forum that as per rules and circular the complainant was bound to pay a sum of Rs.17255.05 paise including the amount of Rs.5120/- incorporated in the earlier bill. Ultimately OPs contended for dismissal of the complaint. As stated in the earlier part of the judgment the complaint was allowed partly. This is how feeling aggrieved, OPs have come up in this appeal.
3. After hearing learned counsel for appellants and going through material the point in issue, which stuck in our mind, is that what were rules and circular on the basis of which the inflated bill of Rs.17591/- was prepared for payment by the respondent. In this regard counsel for appellants was asked to point out those rules/circular or copy of the ledger, if any. Thereupon he was unable to show anything on the file in that behalf .
4. Faced with these circumstances we have no option but to dismiss this appeal. Accordingly same is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
Certified copies of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to records.
Announced ( Justice Pritam Pal)(Retd.) 8th July.,2009 President (Maj.Gen.S.P.Kapoor )(Retd.) Member