SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER Vs. JAGIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appellate jurisdiction of this Commission has been invoked against the order dated 14.2.2005 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -I, U.T., Chandigarh in Complaint Case No. 488 of 2003. The contextual facts in brief are as under.

(2.) THE respondent/complainant Sh. Jagir Singh filed the complaint in the Forum on account of inflated electricity bills supplied by the appellant/OP department for certain periods. The complainant has averred that he received the bill for the period 9.12.2001 to 9.2.2002 showing consumption of 813 units raising an amount of Rs. 1,934. He visited the office of appellant for the rectification and he after due verification was asked to pay only Rs. 900 in lumpsum against the bill. The complainant has stated that though he considered this amount to be on the higher side but it was paid under protest by him. The next bill for the period 9.2.2002 to 9.4.2002 showing consumption of 1069 units was served. The respondent/complainant again represented to the OP department and brought it to notice of OP that even though his meter has been replaced consequent to inflated readings but still the reading of new meter is not commensurate with the consumption of electricity by him, as shown in the previous usage pattern, through the earlier bills. The complainant has stated that on 7.5.2002, the electric supply to his premises was disconnected without any notice. However, inspite of disconnection, he was served the bill for the period 9.6.2002 to 9.8.2002 showing consumption of 61 units and again he was asked by the officials of the OP department to deposit Rs. 1,000 on average basis so that the supply of electricity could be restored. The respondent/complainant has submitted that he deposited Rs. 1,000 as he was not left with any option. It has been alleged that after a number of complaints, his electricity meter was replaced but the earlier bills raised on the basis of the reading from the defective meter were not revised or modified. The bill for the period 9.8.2002 to 9.10.2002 showing consumption of 27 units for an amount of Rs. 430 was raised. Thereafter the bill for the period 9.10.2002 to 9.12.2002 was for consumption of 1 unit of electricity but the amount due was shown as Rs. 400. The respondent/complainant has alleged that the consumption shown by this replaced meter was also not in accordance to the usage as shown in the previous bills which proved his point that the replaced meter was also defective. In support of his averment of low consumption, the respondent/complainant has stated that he alone is occupying the premises and his family members are staying in a village, situated in District Karnal. Further he being a Government servant employed in Haryana Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh and is in his office during office hours i.e. from 8.30 a.m. to 5.30 p.m. and consumption for this period would automatically be nil. It has also been alleged that the previous defective meter has not been tested in any laboratory and wrong bills were issued to him and he was forced to deposit inflated amount. The respondent/complainant has submitted that though as per the laws of electricity department, 24 hours notice is required to be served before disconnection. No such notice was served upon him but to his utter shock bill for the period from 9.12.2002 to 9.2.2003 for Rs. 280 was issued to him inspite of the fact that supply of electricity to his house was disconnected during this period. The respondent/complainant has alleged that he had to run from pillar to post to get the electricity connected and also to get revised/corrected bills but he was made to suffer due to irresponsible and negligent attitude of OPs. A prayer has been made for issuance of a direction to restore the electricity supply, to replace the defective meter with a new one after testing the same, to rectify the inflated bills and adjust the excess amount paid in the future bills. Rs. 10,000 on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs. 5,000 towards litigation have also been claimed.

(3.) ,791, which included the arrears of previous bills issued on 2.5.2002. The next bill for April, 2002 to June, 2002 recorded a consumption of 475 units raising the amount of Rs. 4,968 and the next bill for the period June, 2002 to August, 2002 showed 61 units amounting to Rs. 5,307 and this bill also included the arrears of previous bills amount of Rs. 4,968. The OPs have stated that again a payment of Rs. 1,000 was allowed to be made by the complainant as he was unable to pay the full amount. The next bill for the period August, 2002 to October, 2002 for the amount of Rs. 6,532 was issued and this bill included a sum of Rs. 1,889 being the amount charged on average basis due to the fact that he was charged for less consumption in the past but on the request of the complainant he was allowed to deposit Rs. 430 towards part payment. The next bill for the period October, 2002 to December, 2002 amounting to Rs. 6,560 included the arrears amounting to Rs. 6,226 but the complainant deposited only Rs. 400 on the basis of minimum charges being only one unit consumption. The appellants/OPs have stated that the accuracy of meter No. CHSE -0791 installed at the premises of the complainant was challenged by the respondent/complainant and as per report (brought on record vide Annexure R -8) the meter was shown to be slow by 3.57% slow but it was within the permissible limit and on this account Rs. 1,889 were refunded to the complainant and same has been reflected in the bills issued on 2.3.2003 brought on record vide Annexures R -5 to R -7. The appellants have alleged that though the meter was correct but it was replaced at the request of the customer for his satisfaction. The bills are issued as per record of consumption by the meter and not on the factum of residence of the family members. The appellants have further stated that Rs. 1,889 charged in excess from the complainant has been refunded to him. Hence he is not justified in raising any dispute on the billing and has to pay the amount for the consumption of electricity. The allegations regarding his representation or complaints not being attended to have been denied and it has been stated that he was allowed to remit the part payments against the huge amounts and even the meter was replaced just to satisfy the customer. The disconnection of electricity was due to non -payment of the bills. A prayer has been made to dismiss the complaint. 4. In evidence, the appellant i.e. Sh. Dharam Singh, S.D.O. Electricity Operation Sub -Division No. 10, Chandigarh has filed his detailed affidavit whereas Sh. Jagir Singh respondent has filed his affidavit along with Annexures C -1 to C -12.