Maj. Gen. S.P. Kapoor, Member:
1. This is an appeal received by transfer from Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission against order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sirsa (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) dated 20.6.2001 in complaint case No. 388 of 2000: Smt. Sangeeta Sachdeva v. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and Others.
2. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that the complainant purchased a house in the year 1992 wherein a meter was installed in the name of Shy. Sher Singh, the previous owner against Electricity Account No. TA-31/0365. The complainant, it was averred, was making the payment of bills regularly. As per the complainant, nobody was living in that house except a servant of the complainant and in July 1998, his brother Sh. Sanjay Kumar shifted to the said house and lived there upto March 1999. As per the complainant, after March 1999, OPs started sending bills on average basis and sent a bill of 1400 units amounting to Rs. 4,456. The complainant, it was averred, approached to OPs and the said bill of Rs. 4,456 was corrected and the complainant was made to pay Rs. 600. Thereafter, OP again sent a bill in April 2000 on average basis amounting to Rs. 8,497, which was again got corrected and the complainant was asked to pay Rs. 354 instead of Rs. 8,497. In the month of June, 2000, the complainant received a bill showing the old reading as 6711 and new reading as 6985 units. The units consumed were shown as 274 and the amount payable was shown as Rs. 545. It was averred that the complainant did not tally this bill with the previous bill as per which he had already paid up to the reading of 6937 units on 28.4.2000 and in this way, only 50 units were consumed after the payment of the previous bill. As per the complainant, he was made to pay in respect of 274 units and the OPs had charged the bill in respect of 227 extra units, which were never consumed by the complainant. The complainant, it was averred, again received a bill of heavy amount of Rs. 16,790 vide bill No. 3469 dated 19.8.2000 wherein the old reading was shown to be as 6985 whereas the new reading was shown as 7039 units and the units consumed were recorded as 54. This bill, as per the complainant, was totally illegal and wrong. As such, the complainant filed complaint before the learned District Forum praying for the following reliefs:
(a)Â OPs be directed to correct the bill dated 19.8.2000 and not to disconnect the electricity;
(b)Â OPs be directed to refund the amount charged on account of meter rent along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of its payment till realization.
(c)Â OPs be directed to correct the bill dated 19.6.2000 and refund the amount charged in respect of 254 units illegally by the OPs in the bill along with interest.
(d)Â OPs be directed to pay Rs. 10,000 as compensation/damages on account of physical and mental harassment.
(e)Â OPs be directed to pay Rs. 5,000 on account of litigation expenses for pursuing the complaint.
3. The version of OPs is that the bills were issued and charged from the complainant as per rules and sale circular. The OPs further pleaded that the meter installed at the premises of the complainant was dead stop and the same was replaced vide MCO No. 89/1731 dated 4.9.1998. OPs asserted that another meter installed in the same premises was also replaced vide MCO No. 68/1667 dated 29.10.1998. As per the OPs, the amount was charged from the complainant on average basis for the period from 5/98 to 9/98 taking the base as 11/98 to 3/99. The complainant was charged an amount of Rs. 16,661 as per the SC and AR No. 367/86/97 and as per the OPs, an amount of Rs. 21,086 was due against the complainant as on 11/2000, which amount was charged as Half Margin No. 48/99/218. Reiterating that the bills of consumption had been issued to the complainant as per the rules and sale circular, OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The learned District Forum in its analysis of the complaint observed that the family of the complainant was residing in the said premises from July 1998 to March 1999 as proved from the affidavits of Sh. Sanjay Kumar and Sh. Ram Avtar (Exhibits C20 and C21). The learned District Forum further from perusal of bills (Exhibits C2 to C15) held that the same were sent on average basis without taking the actual reading of the meter. In view of its analysis, the learned District Forum recorded that definitely there was more consumption during the period July 1998 to March 1999 and further from perusal of the bills, it opined that the bill was issued on average basis and the premises was locked. According to Exhibit C20 and C21, as per the learned District Forum, only a servant was residing in the said premises of the complainant prior to July 1998 and in case, a family would have been living in the premises, there would not be permanent lock on the house. Thus, the learned District Forum raised a presumption that except the period July 1998 to March 1999, there was less consumption as only a servant was residing in the premises in question and held the OP guilty under Sections 2(1)(g) and 2(1)(o) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Holding deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the learned District Forum directed him to revise bills Exhibits C2 and C3 while taking the barometer of consumption of reading of the meter from April 1999 to September 1999. The learned District Forum quashed both the bills and directed the OPs to issue fresh revised bill according to consumption data for the period from April 1999 to September 1999. It further recorded that in case the consumption was low then OP can recover minimum consumption charges with prevailing rates. The order was directed to be complied with within a period of one month failing which the complainant would be entitled to interest on the excess amount paid by him to the OPs. It further directed that after issuing the revised bill and settling the account of the complainant, the excess amount of the complainant be also returned or adjusted in the future bill.
5. Aggrieved by the said order of learned District Forum, the OPs had filed this appeal before the Haryana State Commission and the same has now been transferred to this Commission under the orders of Honble National Commission. Brig. B.S. Taunque (Retd.), Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellant/OP. Initially Mr. Sandeep Sihag, Advocate had appeared on behalf of the respondent on 4.7.2008 but on the date of final hearing i.e. 24.10.2008, none appeared on behalf of the respondent and the case was fixed for 7.11.2008 for pronouncement of orders.
6. We have gone through the record on file as well as the impugned order and have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant.
7. Vide impugned order the learned District Forum has directed the OP to revise the bill Exhibits C-2 and C-3 while taking the barometer of consumption, the reading of the meter from April 1999 to September 1999 and it has further given the liberty to the OP to recover the minimum consumption charges with the prevailing rates in case the consumption was found to be low. The dispute is with regard to the electricity bills issued on 19.6.2000 and 19.8.2000. The version of the OP is that the bill amount charged from the complainant for the period 5/1998 to 9/1998 on average basis taking base as 11/1998 to March, 1999 had been included in the disputed bills as sundry charges/arrears and this amount came to Rs. 21,086 as on 11 November, 2000. We have carefully perused the bills placed on record as Exhibits C-2 to C-15. A perusal of the bills indicates that no mention of any arrears pertaining to the period 5/1998 to 9/1998 have been indicated earlier than the disputed bills. If the OP had taken the base for calculation of the arrears as November 1998 to March 1999 the arrears should have been reflected in the bill dated 19 April, 1999 i.e. Exhibit C-10 and thereafter. However, we find no mention of any arrears till the bill issued on 18th April, 2000 as Exhibit C-4. It is settled law that no arrears for the period earlier than 6 months can be claimed by the OP unless these are continuously reflected in the bills from the time they became due. Therefore we find no merit in the plea of the OP that the complainant was liable to pay some arrears pertaining to the period 5/1998 to 9/1998 and the same had been added in the disputed bills. Furthermore the two disputed bills i.e. Exhibits C-2 and C-3 have been correctly ordered by the learned District Forum to be corrected on the basis of consumption for the period from April 1999 to September 1999 even though the meter had shown very little consumption. The OP has also been given liberty to charge from the complainant for this period on minimum consumption charges basis in case the consumption during the said period is found to be low. The OP legally is not entitled to recover any arrear from the complainant pertaining to the period 5/1998 to 9/1998 through bills given in June/August, 2000 and the direction to correct the bills in dispute i.e. C-2 and C-3 is to the benefit of the OP.
8. In view of the foregoing discussion we find that the impugned order is just fair and legal and it does not require any interference. It is therefore upheld. The appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed as it lacks substance.
Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.