HARI CHAND R/O. 2144, SECTOR 13, URBAN ESTATE KARNAL HARYANA Vs. HARYANA VIDHYUT PRASARAN NIGAM LTD. & ANR. THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, SHAKTI BHAWAN PANCHKULA HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These revision petitions have been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 27.12.2010, passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') in cross appeals Nos. 2061 & 1927/2002, vide which, Appeal No. 2061/2002 filed by the OP Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited (HVPNL) was accepted, while the other appeal No. 1927/2002 filed by the complainant for enhancement of compensation was dismissed. Consequently, the order passed by the District Forum, Karnal dated 25.07.2002, passed in consumer complaint No. 1200/99 filed by the present petitioner, allowing the said complaint was set aside and the complaint was dismissed.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the complainant Hari Chand took the cold storage, Hansi Road, Karnal on lease for a period of one year with effect from 01.01.99 from its owner, and he had been using electric connection No. MS-27 installed at the premises of the said cold storage. It is alleged by the complainant that he received exaggerated bills for the consumption of electricity from the opposite party (OP)/respondents for the months of May 1999 to Sept. 1999. The complainant filed an application with OP-2, SDO, requesting for checking of the electric meter installed at the premises. The OP-2 allowed the complainant to deposit amounts of Rs. 60,000.00, Rs. 80,000.00, Rs. 90,000.00 and Rs.80,000.00 for the months of June 1999 to Sept. 1999 against the bills sent by them, which were for higher amounts. The complainant requested for installation of a check-meter in parallel with the existing meter in order to check the correctness of the existing meter, but there was no positive response from the OPs. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking directions to the OPs to install a check-meter in parallel with the existing meter and to send revised bills for the months of June 1999 onwards and also to pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000.00 along with cost of litigation of Rs. 2,200.00.

(3.) The consumer complaint was resisted by the OPs by filing a written statement before the District Forum, in which they took a preliminary objection that the electric connection MS-27 was in the name of Om Prakash and hence, the complainant did not come under the category of consumer and he had no locus standi to file the complaint. The OPs replied that on the request of the complainant, the check meter was installed on 10.11.99. It was found from the readings that the consumption as shown by the check-meter was more than that shown by the existing meter, meaning thereby that the meter installed at the premises was slow by 25.7%. The complainant was, therefore, liable to make payment on the basis of the readings shown in the check-meter.