HVPN Vs. ATAM PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal received by transfer from Haryana State Commission, under the orders of Hon ble National Commission has been filed against order dated 21.6.2001 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal in complaint case No. 1281 of 1999. The contextual facts in brief are as under.

(2.) THE respondent/complainant Sh. Atam Parkash is subscriber of electric connection under the agriculture category for a 5 BHP motor vide account No. B -783. It has been averred that charges were levied to the respondent/complainant on the flat rate basis, which as per rate in the revenue estate of Nilokheri is stated to be Rs. 50 per BHP. As per case set up by the complainant the electricity bill for the month of May, 1999 was issued to him charging a rate of Rs. 65 per BHP while the bills for months of June, July and August were issued showing a charge of Rs. 81 per BHP. The applicable rate was enhanced further in bill of September, 1999 as it was @ Rs. 136 per BHP while for the month of October, 1999, Rs. 81 per BHP were charged. The respondent/complainant is aggrieved against the frequent variation in the per BHP charges. It is alleged that the appellant/OP has enhanced in an arbitrary manner and without any notice and the consumer is made to pay the bills as per sweet will of the appellant Board. It is alleged that due to issuance of bills at the varied rates, the OP is guilty of rendering deficient in service. It is contended by the complainant that his tariff was to be calculated on the basis of supply for eight hours per day, as other tubewells which were also getting supply from the urban feeders received energy for 24 hours but are being charged for eight hours only. It is also the say of the complainant that he was asked to provide his own meter which he failed to do so due to which the electricity department started charging on the flat rate basis for 10 -16 hours per day depending upon the availability and the use of electricity in the area of the complainant. In the prayer clause, a direction has been sought against the OPs to charge him @ Rs. 50 per BHP and to refund the amount received in excess of above rate. Compensation on account of harassment and deficiency has also been prayed for.

(3.) IN the written statement filed on behalf of OP, it is submitted that the supply to the tubewell of the complainant was charged as per tariff applicable on the flat rate calculated on the basis of eight hours supply each day. It is submitted that some tubewells which were given connection from the urban feeders were getting electricity for 24 hours but were charged for eight hours only due to which the appellant department was made to suffer heavy losses and in order to stop such losses, the option to supply electricity on the flat rate basis to the consumers getting energy from the urban feeders was withdrawn vide sale circular No. 18/97 dated 19.6.1997. The OP has alleged that the complainant did not supply the meter to the Board despite notice given to him by putting stamp on his electric bill, however he failed to follow this direction. The OP has submitted that instead of withdrawing the facility of electricity to the complainant, he was charged for 10 -16 hours supply per day depending upon the availability and use of power. It is stated that charges levied on the complainant have been as per consumption. The allegations of deficiency in service have been denied.