KAMLESH GAUR Vs. D E S U

JUDGEMENT

(1.) O.P. No. 110 has been filed by the Citizen Protection Forum represented by Mrs. Kamlesh Gaur, Shri Vinod Kumar and Shri J.K. Gupta against the General Manager, DESU, Delhi. The crux of the complaint is that the consumers are being billed at Rs. 2.40 per unit for industrial light whereas they should be billed at Rs. 2.00 per unit for loads upto 20 HP and Rs. 2.20 per unit for loads over 20 HP.

(2.) Inspite of complainant No. 1 corresponding with the opposite party for amalgamating light and power energy meters, the same was not attended to by the opposite party and, therefore, complainant No. 1 served a notice on the opposite party. Subsequently, the complainant's light meter was removed and light and power consumption was metered through one meter and billed at Rs. 2.00 per unit. In view of this, complainant No. 1 worked out the excess amount charged from 6.10.93 to 26.3.94 at Rs. 756/- and claimed refund. It is mentioned in the complaint that the other two consumers who have been named in the complaint have not got their light meter removed and have already paid excess amount and that the same is the plight of over 60,000 consumers similarly placed. The complainant had contended that the non-amalgamation of the two meters is an unfair trade practice and prayed for discontinuation of the same and for appropriate compensation to the consumers who are affected by the deficiencies pointed out in the complaint. In their reply, the opposite party pointed out that as per memo of parties, there are only three complainants by name and the rest are un-named and even the number of aggrieved consumers is not certain. The opposite party has contended that the complainants have also failed to substantiate the basis of their collecting the figure of 60,000 as consumers falling under this category and have therefore termed the complaint as vague.

(3.) We have heard the complainant through her Authorised Representative and the Counsel for the opposite party. The General Manager of the DESU also appeared before this Commission on 1.3.96 in response to the summons of this Commission. It was admitted that there was deficiency in service on their part in the specific case of complainant No. 1 whose meter was not amalgamated for sufficiently long period even after her representation. The opposite party further assured that in future they would immediately amalgamate the meters the moment anybody approaches DESU for such amalgamation and would charge at a flat rate of Rs. 2.00 per unit. As far as the complainant No. 1 is concerned, the opposite party admitted that she had been charged excess of Rs. 756/- which needed to be refunded. As for complainants No. 2 & 3, the Counsel for the opposite party argued that the submission was vague as it was not clear whether these two complainants have at all represented for amalgamation of the meters and for that matter whether they were at all interested in such an amalgamation. These two complainants have not filed even the agreement with the opposite party so as to ascertain their category. However, the opposite party undertook before the Commission that if these two consumers also represent for amalgamation the opposite party would ensure the amalgamation and charge at the appropriate tariff rate. It was further pointed out that though the opposite party had taken out office order for amalgamation of meters way back in 1984 for domestic purpose, there are still a number of consumers who do not want any amalgamation and went to retain both the meters. In the result, the opposite party have settled the matter in respect of the complainant No. 1 where the complaint is specific and assured that they will take necessary action in respect of the other two named complainants as and when they approach the opposite party; the subsisting part of the complaint does not specify the details of the remaining so-called similarly placed over 60,000 consumers. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we dismiss the complaint. No costs. Complaint dismissed.