HARYANA VIDHUT PRASARAN NIGAM LTD Vs. RAJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Haryana Vidhut Parsaran Nigam Ltd. (now DHBVNL), Petitioner herein, has filed the present revision petition against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in Appeal No. 274 of 2000 wherein Raj Kumar was the Respondent. The facts of the case are that the Respondent and his father were subscribers of two electricity connections Nos. R2-516 and R2-517 of the Petitioner/Nigam installed in their shop-cum-flat No. 83, Rajguru Market, Hisar. Respondent/Complainant alleged that the meter reader had not been recording the readings of the two meters and when these were checked by one Sh. Nehra, A.D.V. (an official of the Petitioner) the seals of both meters were intact. However, he advised that the load of both meters should be placed on one meter and accordingly Meter No. R2-517 was disconnected and its load was transferred to Meter No. R2-516 by replacing it with a larger meter Thereafter, according to the Respondent, Petitioner kept on sending wrong bills in respect of the newly installed single meter (R2-516) against which the Respondent represented although, he kept depositing part-payment of the same to avoid disconnection and consequently an amount of Rs. 16,350 was deposited by him in excess of the due amount. In respect of connection No. R2-517, Petitioner continued to send bills till 25.11.1995 even after its disconnection on 25.7.1994. Respondent was forced to deposit an amount of Rs. 5,312 in respect of this meter because Petitioner threatened to disconnect Connection No. R2-516 if the money for Connection No. R2-517 was not paid. Since, Petitioner did not heed the legitimate complaints of the Respondent and kept asking him to pay amounts which were not due, Respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum requesting that the Petitioner be directed to correct the amount of bill in respect of Connection No. R2-516, not to charge amount of Rs. 58,828 being demanded vide Bill issued on 29.9.1996, refund of excess amount of Rs. 16,350 with interest in respect of Connection No. R2-516 and to refund Rs. 5,312 in respect of Connection No. R2-517 and pay Rs. 20,000 as damages with costs.

(2.) Petitioner has dented the above contentions and stated that Connection No. R2-516 was released to the Respondent on 6.1.1993 and the first bill was issued in July, 1993 with the report of the Meter Reader that the meter installed in the premises had got burnt. On 25.7.1994, the said burnt meter was changed and a new meter was installed and on the basis of the consumption shown in the new meter, Respondent was charged Rs. 47,400 for the period from 6.1.1993 to July, 1994 on the basis of consumption of 3214 units bi-monthly. Further, the electricity consumption of the Respondent after installing the single new meter was 2000 to 3000 units bimonthly. Thus, the amount was rightly charged based on readings of the meter.

(3.) Aggrieved by this order, Petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission which dismissed the same by upholding the order of the District Forum in toto.