HVPN Vs. RAJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -THIS appeal received by transfer from Haryana State Commission has been filed against order dated 23. 12. 1999 by the District Consumer Forum, Hissar (Haryana) in complaint case No. 912 of 1996. The contextual facts in brief are as under : the father of complainant and he were subscribers of two electric connections bearing Nos. R-II/516 and R-II/517 at the premises SCF No. 93, Rajguru Market, Hissar. It has been averred that the meter reader did not record readings in the proper manner. The ADV party headed by Sh. Nehra found the seals to be intact. It is further been averred that due to the fact of both the connections having been supplied to same shop, the ADV advised the complainant to get the load on one connection only and accordingly the account No. R-2/517 was closed and the load was shifted to other connection bearing No. R-2/516. The complainant has averred that wrong bills were sent to him though he kept on depositing the part payment of the same and consequently an amount of Rs. 16350 was got deposited from him in excess of due amount. Further the complainant has stated that a bill for an amount of Rs. 64,828 was sent to him on 29. 9. 1996 and out of this Rs. 6,000 was deposited by him. It is alleged that electric connection No. R-2/517 was permanently disconnected on 25. 7. 1994 however due to wrong issuance of bills till 25. 11. 9696 a sum of Rs. 5,311. 71 paise has been charged in excess from the respondent/complainant. A prayer has been made to waive off the amount of Rs. 58,828 and a direction be given to the OPs to refund the amount of Rs. 21,656, in addition costs of litigation amounting to Rs. 20,000 have been claimed.

(2.) IN the written statement filed by the OPs, the preliminary objection taken is that complaint is not maintainable on the ground that the complainant has not come to the Court with clean hands. The complaint is stated to be bad in the eyes of law as arbitration clause has not been complied with before coming to the Forum. Further the complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint. It has been averred that the complainant has neither denied having two connections in one shop nor admitted the same, though he has averred that the electric connection was released on 6. 1. 1993 and first bill was raised in the month of July, 1993 and the meter reader reported the fact of meter having got burnt. The OPs have stated that the said meter remained in the premises of the complainant till July, 1994 after which the same was changed and a new meter was installed which showed consumption of 2489 units for the period 25. 4. 1994 to 10. 9. 1994. The appellant/op has averred that the average of one month was to be 1607 units and by-monthly consumption was 2504 units. Consequently the account of the complainant was overhauled for the period 6. 1. 1993 to July, 1994 on the basis of average consumption of 3214 for two months cycle, and an amount of Rs. 47,400. 61 was charged accordingly and the complainant is liable to pay the same.

(3.) THE District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the OPs not to charge the amount of Rs. 47,400. 61 with surcharge of Rs. 63,515. The Forum further directed the OPs to refund/adjust the amount of Rs. 21,662 and to pay the same with interest @ 12% p. a from the date of deposit till adjustment/payment. Rs. 1,100 were granted towards the costs of litigation.