THE SECRETARY, HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED & OTHERS Vs. KASHMIR SINGH GULERIA & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants are aggrieved by the order dated 18.06.2014, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandi, whereby a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, filed against them by respondent -Kashmir Singh Guleria, has been allowed and a direction given to them (the appellants) to remove the problem of low voltage, within twenty days of the passing of impugned order and bills Annexures (Mark) C to F have been quashed with further direction to revise the said bills and the excess amount, if any, after revision of bills, has been directed to be adjusted against future bills. In addition, there is a direction for payment of Rs.3,000/ -, being compensation for mental harassment and Rs.2,000/ - have been ordered to be paid, on account of litigation expenses.

(2.) Respondent No.1/complainant filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging that he is a consumer' of electricity, provided at his residence in Bhangrotu in Mandi District. Electricity is supplied by the appellants. He alleged that service wire, connecting his building with the main supply line of the appellants, is defective and broken at points and those broken points have been joined, without covering the naked ends properly. According to him, because of the wire being defective and having so -many joints with naked ends, voltage of electricity at his premises, was very low. Also, he alleged that meter installed in his premises, was defective for which he had been complaining, since long, but it was replaced only in March, 2012. He further alleged that he had been approaching the appellants to provide two phase connection to his premises, but his request had fallen on deaf ears. He alleged that when the meter was ultimately checked, it was found that it was defective, but no discount had been given in the bills, Annexures (Mark) C, D, E & F, which are for the period from 20.09.2010 to 21.01.2012.

(3.) Complaint was contested by the appellants. They denied that service line provided on the spot, for supply of electricity to the premises of the complainant, was defective and broken. Also, it was denied that voltage of electricity, at the premises of the complainant, was low. It was stated that meter was checked and it was found that it was too fast by 5.264% and accordingly, a discount of 144 units, was given to him, in the bills for the last six months and for the aforesaid number of units, a sum of Rs.468/ -, had been reduced from the revised bills for the period from August, 2011 to February, 2012.