Before the Forum for Redressal of Consumer Grievances, DHBVN.

Transcription

1 FORUM FOR REDRESSAL OF CONSUMER GRIEVANCES DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM D-BLOCK, Ground Floor, Vidyut Sadan, Vidyut Nagar, Hisar Telephone No (website: ( ID: Case No. DH/CGRF-1703/2017 Date of Institution: Date of Hearing: , & & Date of Order: Before the Forum for Redressal of Consumer Grievances, DHBVN. Present:- K.D.Bansal, Member Technical-cum-Chairman Rajesh Sharma, Member/Accounts Manu Bishnoi, Independent Member In the matter of complaint of Sh. Anil Kumar S/o Sh. Ram Mehar, ELG-1, Pushpa Complex, Delhi road, Hisar regarding release of wrong connection. Appearance:- V/s.. Complainant/Petitioner 1. XEN/Op. Division No.2, DHBVN,Hisar. 2.SDO/Op. Sub-Division, DHBVN, Satrod, Hisar..Respondents For Complainant: For the Respondent: 1.Sh. Anil Kumar. None from Smt.Raj Bala 1.Nodal Officer, CGRF, DHBVN, Hisar. 2.Representative of SDO/Op. Sub- Division, DHBVN, Satrod, Hisar.

2 ORDER Sh. Anil Kumar S/o Sh. Ram Mehar, ELG-1, Pushpa Complex, Delhi Road, Hisar has got an electricity connection bearing A/C No under SDO/Op. Sub-Division, DHBVN, Satrod, hence this Forum has jurisdiction to hear the complaint. The complainant has filed the present complaint, stating therein that he has an house No.49, Gali No.5, Surya Nagar, Hisar purchased from Smt. Raj Bala W/o Sh. Suresh Kumar. The registry and Intkal are in his name. He got an electricity in this house by depositing all required documents but later on due to some reason He got the supply disconnected by issuing PDCO. Now he come to know that SDO & JE, Satrod sub-division have installed a meter in this house by conniving with Smt. Raj Bala, which is illegal. He has also served a legal notice on the SDO in this regard, the consumer requested the Forum to take action against the delinquents. The complaint was forwarded to the Nodal Officer for filing the written reply of the Nigam and both the parties were asked to appear before the Forum on at Hisar for hearing of the case. During the proceedings held at Hisar on , the consumer and respondent SDO were present. The SDO informed the Forum that he got the complaint only a day before and needs time to prepare and file written submissions. As such requested for next date. Request allowed. The case was adjourned to the next date i.e During the proceedings held at Hisar on , the consumer and representative of respondent SDO were present. The SDO submitted reply through Nodal Officer/CGRF vide his memo No dated , stating therein that:- 1. The present application is not maintainable in the present forum. 2. The dispute regarding the possession of the residential property in between Anil Kumar S/o Sh. Ram Mehar and Smt. Raj Bala Saharan W/o Late Sh. Suresh Kumar is pending in the civil court at Hisar and the same is yet to be decided. 3. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering respondent. 4. The applicant Anil Kumar has no locus standi and right to file this present complaint. On Merits:- That in reply to the complaint made by the applicant Anil Kumar, it is submitted that an electricity connection No. SN-1309 in the name of Smt. Raj Bala W/o Late Sh. Suresh Saharan and thereafter, the said electricity connection was transferred in the name of Sh. Anil Kumar S/o Sh. Ram Mehar on the basis of affidavit filed by Smt. Raj Bala W/o Late Sh. Suresh Saharan to the effect that the electricity connection mentioned above in her name may be changed/transferred in the name of Sh. Anil Kumar S/o Sh. Ram Mehar. Thereafter, the electricity connection was transferred in

3 the name of Sh. Anil Kumar S/o Sh. Ram Mehar, vide A/C No but Sh. Anil Kumar moved a request before the Nigam that the electricity connection vide A/C No may be permanently disconnected and accordingly after due verification of the record, the PDCO order No dated was issued and the same was affected on Thereafter, Smt. Raj Bala approached the office of the sub-division, Satrod, DHBVN,Hisar for new electricity connection and after completing the necessary formalities and due verification of the record, an electricity connection vide A/C No was released and service connection order was issued on and at present the electricity connection in the premises of Smt. Raj Bala is running in her name. It is submitted that at the time of request made by Sh. Anil Kumar for permanent disconnection, no objection was raised by anyone at the time of release of the electricity connection in the name of Smt. Raj Bala. Sh. Anil Kumar S/o Sh. Ram Mehar served a legal notice through his counsel to the office of answering respondent which revealed that a suit for possession in between Anil Kumar and Smt. Raj Bala is pending in the Civil Court at Hisar and the matter is sub-judice. It is, therefore, prayed that the present application may kindly be dismissed as the answering respondent has no concern whatsoever with the regard to the possession, ownership and dispute in between Anil Kumar and Smt. Raj Bala. Smt. Raj Bala W/o Sh. Suresh Kumar, R/o H.No. 49, Gali No.5, Surya Nagar, Hisar has filed an application before this Forum on requesting therein that:- 1. Sh. Anil filed a false application before this Forum which was fixed for The applicant is occupier of house and using premises No. 49, Gali No.5, Surya Nagar, Hisar and the applicant Anil filed a suit for possession which is pending in the civil court at Hisar and also got a bogus registry of the house in his name which is also under challenge and on false ground wants to remove the meter of the applicant to which he has no right under the law. It is settled law that occupier has the right to have the meter in her name. 3. Earlier the applicant Anil filed a forged affidavit and removed the meter of the applicant for which a criminal complaint is also pending in the court. 4. The applicant Anil has intentionally not impleaded the applicant in the present case whereas the applicant necessary and affected party and is also a consumer. The applicant Anil without impleading the applicant wants to decide the case in his favour. The applicant Raj Bala prayed that she may be impleaded as a party in the present case on the grounds aforementioned.

4 In view of the application filed by Raj Bala as above on 5/05/2017, the Forum decides to call for both the parties to appear before the Forum on for hearing of the case. The SDO Op. Sub-Division, Satrod is directed to remain present in person during hearing on The case was listed for hearing on next date. The proceedings held at Hisar on Both the complainants i.e. Sh. Anil Kumar S/o Sh. Rammehar & Smt. Rajbala W/o Sh. Suresh Saharan and the respondent SDO were present. The SDO submitted consumer case file of Sh. Anil Kumar S/o Sh. Rammehar and written reply through Nodal Officer/CGRF, vide his memo No dated , stating therein that:- 1. The reply of para No.1 is matter of record. 2. The applicant Smt. Rajbala W/o Late Sh. Suresh Saharan has an electric connection bearing A/C No. SN1D-1309 in her name. That Sh. Anil Kumar get the meter transferred in his name on the basis of affidavit of Smt. Rajbala W/o Late Sh. Suresh Saharan. Hence, the connection transferred from the name of Smt. Rajbala W/o Late Sh. Suresh Saharan to Sh. Anil Kumar S/o Sh. Rammehar and the same was transferred in the name of Ah. Anil Kumar S/o Sh. Rammehar vide A/C No and Sh. Anil Kumar moved before the Nigam that electricity connection bearing A/C No may be permanently disconnected after due verification of the record and PDCO bearing no dated was issued and same was affrected on The applicant Smt. Rajbala approached the office of SDO/Op. S/Divn., DHBVN, Satrod, Hisar for new electricity connection and after completing all usual formalities and verification of record connection was released on dated and at present the electricity connection in the premises of Smt. Rajbala is running in her name. It is further added that no objection was raised by anyone at the time of release of electricity connection in the name of Smt. Rajbala. 4. A Civil Suit titled Anil Kumar V/s Rajbala is pending in the Hon ble Court of Sh. Mukesh Kumar, Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Hisar and one another case is pending in the Hon ble court of Sh. Sudhir Kumar, Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Hisar titled Rajbala V/s Anil under section 420/467/468/471/506 IPC which is fixed for The cases between applicant and Sh. Anil Kumar is running in different courts as mentioned in para No. 4.

5 Keeping in view of the above facts and submission, it is prayed that the complaint of applicant may be disposed off without any cost under declaration made by applicant in Annexure-1 of complaint. Sh. Anil Kumar S/o Sh. Ram Mehar, the original complainant before this Forum in the matter has refuted the statement of the respondent SDO that no objection was raised by anyone at the time of release of electricity connection in the name of Smt. Rajbala. He informed that Forum that a notice was served to the SDO/Op., Satrod, Hisar objecting the release of connection in the name of Smt. Rajbala and the notice is duly acknowledged on dated , a copy of which available in the case file. Sh. Anil Kumar further argued before the Forum that the photographs of premises in the A&A Form submitted for seeking the electricity connection in his name and in the name of Smt. Rajbala is same. Sh. Anil Kumar has also produced copy of registry and Intkal in his name for the premises in dispute. The other complainant in the matter Smt. Rajbala was present and argued her case on the line of written submissions and insisted that she is the real owner of the premises and the electricity connection has been released as per instructions and there is no illegality is involved in the matter. The respondent SDO was present and after hearing both the parties, submitted before the Forum that copy of Sizra report from the revenue authorities to be obtained from both the complainants to ascertain the lawful occupancy of the premises in dispute on which both the parties are staking their respective claims. After hearing all the parties of the case and perusal of the records, the Forum observed that Smt. Rajbala W/o Late Sh. Suresh Saharan has applied for the electricity connection in the office of respondent SDO on and the connection was released on the same very date after completing all the requisite formalities viz. processing of A&A Form, Inspection of premises and installation of meter which shows undue haste in release of the ibid connection even after receipt of legal notice from the other complainant Sh. Anil Kumar S/o Sh. Ram Mehar in the matter. From the records and documents available in the case file, the Forum further observed that Smt. Rajbala W/o Late Sh.Suresh Saharan claims to be the occupier of the property i.e. H.No. 49,Gali No.5 of Surya Nagar, Hisar and nowhere indicated her position as lawful occupier of the premises which is a pre-requisite for release of electricity connection. This Forum is, however, to ascertain the bonafide of the release of the connection in the name of Smt. Rajbala on only. The matter of title of the property is to be decided by the competent Civil Courts for which the matter is already under adjudication.

6 The case is adjourned to the next date i.e with the direction to the SDO to produce before the Forum the details of the connections processed and released on the same day in respect of his sub-division during the last one year along with original case files of both the complainant and seniority list of domestic consumers (Service connection register) on or before the next date of hearing. Both the complainants are to produce the Sizra report from revenue authorities in support of their case on the next hearing. The proceedings of the case held at Hisar on The original complainant Sh. Anil Kumar was present but no one for Smt. Raj Bala appeared on this date. The representative of Sub Divn appeared for the Licensee. Sub Divn representative placed on record the documents as asked during earlier hearing. On going through the records of the case and hearing the parties, the Forum observed that:- 1 (A) The electricity connection in the name of Smt. Raj Bala has been released by the respondent SDO on the date of application itself i.e and that too after receipt of legal notice given by Sh. Anil Kumar hence there was undue haste in release of this connection. 1 (B) The Forum asked for the list of connections released on the same day from the SDO during the last one year and as per data received no connection found to be released on the same day except in the name of Smt. Rajbala and those released by holding special camps in villages and extension load/temporary connections. 2 As per consumer case file of Sh. Anil Kumar, the connection bearing account No.SN-1309 was released in the premises whose neighbors are Phool Kumar (SN-775) and Sh. Jarnail Singh (SN-1060) as shown in the verification report carried out by Sh. Ramesh Kumar Lineman of Satrod Sub divn on and countersigned by JE Incharge of the area. 3 However as per connection/premises verification report placed in the case file of Smt. Raj Bala the neighbors of the premises are shown as Prem Singh (SN- 1928) and Sukhbir (SN-565) with the remarks that meter of connection No. SN 1309 was earlier installed in the same premises which prima facie appears to be incorrect and the connection appear to be installed at different site. 4 As per documents placed in the case file of Smt. Raj Bala the ownership documents submitted are of the year 1998 whereas, the ownership documents placed in the case file of Sh. Anil Kumar, the registry documents bears date of The verification report of the sub division dated 29/03/2017 at the time of the release of connection to Smt. Rajbala contain the remarks that the earlier meter SN-1309 was installed in the same premises which is incorrect. 5 No seniority of domestic connections was found maintained in the office of respondent SDO while releasing the connection at disputed premises as no such documents was produced before the Forum by the respondent SDO. Keeping in view the above, the Forum decides that that entire issue may be enquired by the Vigilance Wing of the Licensee DHBVN and further action including fixing of responsibility of officials for committing irregularities in the release of connection and shifting of meter at the correct site as per findings of the Vigilance may

7 be taken accordingly. With this direction the complaint is disposed of. The case is closed. Both the parties to bear their own cost. As required under Haryana State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Guidelines for establishment of Forum for Redressal of Grievances of consumers, Electricity Ombudsman and Consumer Advocacy) Regulations-2016, the implementation of this decision may be intimated to this office within 30 days from the date of its receipt. If the petitioner is not satisfied with the decision of CGRF, he has the right to file an appeal before the Electricity Ombudsman, Haryana, HERC, Bays No.33-36, Sector-4, Panchkula within one month from the date of receipt of the order of the Forum as per Regulation 2.59 of Haryana State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Guidelines for establishment of Forum for Redressal of Grievances of consumers, Electricity Ombudsman and Consumer Advocacy) Regulations File be consigned to record. Given under our hands on this day of 12 th July, (K.D.Bansal) (Rajesh Sharma) (Manu Bishnoi) Member Technical Member/Accounts Independent Member -cum-chairman

8 FORUM FOR REDRESSAL OF CONSUMER GRIEVANCES DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM D-BLOCK, Ground Floor, Vidyut Sadan, Vidyut Nagar, Hisar- Telephone No (website: ( ID: Case No. DH/CGRF-1729/2017 Date of Institution: Date of Hearing: Date of Order: Before the Forum for Redressal of Consumer Grievances, DHBVN. Present:- K.D.Bansal, Member Technical-cum-Chairman Rajesh Sharma, Member Accounts Manu Bishnoi, Independent Member In the matter of complaint of Sh. Govind Ram S/o Sh. G. Judha (through Sh. Nirmal Bansal), Ch.Manakchand Ki Gali, Gali Naoan, Bhiwani regarding billing problem... Complainant/Petitioner V/s. 1. Xen/Op. City Division, DHBVN, Bhiwani. 2.SDO/Op. City S/Division, DHBVN, Bhiwani..Respondents Appearance:- For Complainant: 1.Representative. For the Respondent: 1.Nodal Officer / CGRF, DHBVN,Hisar 2.Representative of SDO of City Sub-Division, DHBVN, Bhiwani.

9 ORDER Sh. Govind Ram S/o Sh. G. Judha, Ch. Manakchand Ki Gali, Gali Naoan, Bhiwani has got an electricity connection bearing A/C No under SDO/Op. City Sub-Division, DHBVN, Bhiwani, hence this Forum has jurisdiction to hear the complaint The complainant has filed the present complaint (through Sh. Nirmal Bansal), stating therein that the respondent issued bill for Rs /- on 3 KW load. He do now know the reasons of such high billing despite that his house is locked for the past 4 years and till recently the minimum bill was raised and paid by him. He requested to instruct the respective officer to look into the matter and doing necessary corrections. He has also filed online complaint under No dated The complaint was forwarded to the Nodal Officer for filing the written reply of the Nigam and both the parties were asked to appear before the Forum on 25/05/2017 at Bhiwani for hearing of the case. The proceedings held at Bhiwani on The representative of consumer and respondent SDO were present. The SDO submitted reply through Nodal Officer/CGRF, vide memo No. 652dated , stating therein that the meter has been removed from the site and got tested from M&P Lab., Charkhi Dadri and meter working found within permissible limit. The consumer s representative was present and argued that his house is locked for about last four years, no one is living in the house and hence such a higher consumption is not at all justified. The Forum enquired from the consumer as to whether any caretaker or any other person is taking the power supply through his meter. To this, the consumer representative replied in negative. The representative of sub-division was present and argued in line with the written submissions and also submitted the consumption data of the consumer for the last about five years. As per the consumption data, the meter is recording electricity consumption. Keeping in view the above material on record, submissions by both the parties and arguments held during the course of hearing, the Forum advised to the complainant to get his premises checked for leakage/fault etc. As per report submitted by the consumer, no such leakage was observed in his premises. The Forum further observed that the consumption recorded in the premises from 06/2013 to 11/2016 is very less and suddenly a consumption of was recorded during the month of 02/2017. The meter was sent to lab on and final reading was observed to be and meter working OK with block heated up. Taking into account all the facts of the case, the Forum concluded that this appears to be a case of accumulation of reading. The Forum, therefore, decides to dispose off the complaint with the following directions:

10 -: 2 :- 1. The total up to date consumption recorded by the meter i.e units be segregated over a period from 06/2013 to the date of removal of the meter and bill prepared as per applicable slab and tariff. 2. Action against the meter reading agency in terms of the Coordinator, DHBVN Hisar Memo No. Ch-24/MON-286/Vol-VIII dated 17/10/2014 may be taken by the Licensee. 3. The connection of the consumer may be disconnected after completing usual formalities in terms of the request of the complainant to this Forum as well as to the SDO on dated The case is closed. The parties to bear their own cost. As required under Haryana State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Guidelines for establishment of Forum for Redressal of Grievances of consumers, Electricity Ombudsman and Consumer Advocacy) Regulations-2016, the implementation of this decision may be intimated to this office within 30 days from the date of its receipt. If the petitioner is not satisfied with the decision of CGRF, he has the right to file an appeal before the Electricity Ombudsman, Haryana, HERC, Bays No.33-36, Sector-4, Panchkula within one month from the date of receipt of the order of the Forum as per Regulation 2.59 of Haryana State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Guidelines for establishment of Forum for Redressal of Grievances of consumers, Electricity Ombudsman and Consumer Advocacy) Regulations File be consigned to record. Given under our hands on this day of 30 th May, (K.D.Bansal) (Rajesh Sharma) (Manu Bishnoi) Member Technical-cum-Chairman Member/Accounts Independent Member

11 FORUM FOR REDRESSAL OF CONSUMER GRIEVANCES DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM D-BLOCK, Ground Floor, Vidyut Sadan, Vidyut Nagar, Hisar- Telephone No (website: ( ID: Case No. DH/CGRF-1730/2017 Date of Institution: Date of Hearing: Date of Order: Before the Forum for Redressal of Consumer Grievances, DHBVN. Present:- K.D.Bansal, Member Technical-cum-Chairman Rajesh Sharma, Member Accounts Manu Bishnoi, Independent Member In the matter of complaint of Sh. Manoj Kumar S/o Sh. Tirlok Nath, Liberty Cinema Road, Bhiwani regarding release of new domestic connection... Complainant/Petitioner V/s. 1. Xen/Op. City Division, DHBVN, Bhiwani. 2.SDO/Op. City S/Division, DHBVN, Bhiwani..Respondents Appearance:- For Complainant: 1.Present. For the Respondent: 1.Nodal Officer / CGRF, DHBVN,Hisar 2.Representative of SDO of City Sub-Division, DHBVN, Bhiwani.

12 ORDER Sh. Manoj Kumar S/o Sh. Tirlok Nath, Liberty Cinema Road, Bhiwani has applied for release of domestic electricity connection which falls under SDO/Op. City Sub-Division, DHBVN, Bhiwani, hence this Forum has jurisdiction to hear the complaint The complainant has filed the present complaint, stating therein that he applied for release of new domestic electricity connection but the respondent has not released his connection uptil now. He requested the Forum to get released his domestic connection. The complaint was forwarded to the Nodal Officer for filing the written reply of the Nigam and both the parties were asked to appear before the Forum on 25/05/2017 at Bhiwani for hearing of the case. The proceedings held at Bhiwani on The complainant and representative of respondent SDO were present. The SDO submitted reply through Nodal Officer/CGRF, vide memo No. 653 dated , stating therein that there is a dispute on the site where that applicant wants to install new meter connection. An affidavit dated 23/05/2017 submitted by the applicant that there is dispute on the site and an appeal in the case is pending. However, he also added in his affidavit that he will be responsible for any loss of revenue or any consequences in the matter. The file taken in process to release new domestic connection on the basis of indemnity bond and an affidavit submitted by him. In case in the process of file/connection any stay granted by the Hon ble Court or any representation/stay order produced by the opposite party, the application file for new connection will be held up till the direction received by the Sub- Division. The applicant was present and argued before the Forum that his possession suit has been decided in his favour by the Lower Court, hence the connection cannot be withheld by the respondent DHBVN. On enquiring about the title of the land/possession, the applicant deposed before the Forum that the land/premises belong to a temple and no title documents are available. It was further informed to the Forum that an appeal in the matter has been filed and pending before the higher court. The representative of sub-division was present and argued on the lines of the written submissions placed before the Forum. Keeping in view the above material on record, submissions by both the parties and arguments held during the course of hearing, the Forum observed that the matter is sub-judice before the Civil Court. The Forum, therefore, decides to dispose off the complaint without any direction the matter already being sub-judice. The case is closed. The parties to bear their own cost.

13 -: 2 :- If the petitioner is not satisfied with the decision of CGRF, he has the right to file an appeal before the Electricity Ombudsman, Haryana, HERC, Bays No.33-36, Sector-4, Panchkula within one month from the date of receipt of the order of the Forum as per Regulation 2.59 of Haryana State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Guidelines for establishment of Forum for Redressal of Grievances of consumers, Electricity Ombudsman and Consumer Advocacy) Regulations File be consigned to record. Given under our hands on this day of 30 th May, (K.D.Bansal) (Rajesh Sharma) (Manu Bishnoi) Member Technical-cum-Chairman Member/Accounts Independent Member

14 FORUM FOR REDRESSAL OF CONSUMER GRIEVANCES DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM D-BLOCK, Ground Floor, Vidyut Sadan, Vidyut Nagar, Hisar- Telephone No (website: ( ID: Case No. DH/CGRF-1731/2017 Date of Institution: Date of Hearing: Date of Order: Before the Forum for Redressal of Consumer Grievances, DHBVN. Present:- K.D.Bansal, Member Technical-cum-Chairman Rajesh Sharma, Member Accounts Manu Bishnoi, Independent Member In the matter of complaint of Sh. Ram Bhagat, Back Side Geeta Bhawan, Kath Mandi, Charkhi Dadri, regarding billing problem... Complainant/Petitioner V/s. 1. Xen/Op. Division, DHBVN, Charkhi Dadri. 2.SDO/Op. City S/Division, DHBVN, Charkhi Dadri..Respondents Appearance:- For Complainant: 1.None. For the Respondent: 1.Nodal Officer / CGRF, DHBVN,Hisar 2.Representative of SDO of City Sub-Division, DHBVN, Charkhi Dadri.

15 ORDER Sh. Ram Bhagat, Back SIde Geeta Bhawan, Kath Mandi, Charkhi Dadri, Bhiwani has got an electricity connection bearing A/C No under SDO/Op. City Sub-Division, DHBVN, Charkhi Dadri, hence this Forum has jurisdiction to hear the complaint. The complainant has filed the present complaint, stating therein that his connection got disconnected in the year after paying the last final bill. He sold his house to Mr. Arjun Lal Bajaj etc. The meter was removed by Sh. Ram Kumar, Lineman who was posted in the respondent sub-division at that time. Now he has been served with a bill amounting to Rs.46124/- against the connection disconnected long ago. He requested the Forum to scrutinize the record of respondent office and get the amount of fictitious billing withdrawn. The complaint was forwarded to the Nodal Officer for filing the written reply of the Nigam and both the parties were asked to appear before the Forum on 25/05/2017 at Bhiwani for hearing of the case. The proceedings held at Bhiwani on The consumer was not present but representative of respondent SDO was present. The SDO submitted filed reply through Nodal Officer/CGRF, vide his memo No.1078 dated , stating therein that billing of the consumer is done on actual consumption of units consumed up to 08/2012. After that period i.e. 08/2012, billing of consumer generated on S code showing meter not at site up to 04/2017. Average billing is charged during this period i.e. from 09/2012 to 04/2017. However, it is pertinent to mention here for your kind consideration that no any correspondence was made by consumer for PDCO of his connection during this period with the office of undersigned. To-day the premises of consumer was personally checked by area in-charge and found that no meter is installed at site and no supply is being used as the premises remains locked. No any electric structure i.e. PVC cable etc. are not found installed or connected. In addition to the ledger copy for the period 06/2012 to 04/2017 was also placed on record. Keeping in view the above material on record, submissions by both the parties and arguments held during the course of hearing, the Forum observed that the meter is not available at site from 10/2012 onwards and billing on S code basis continued till 04/2017. Considering all the facts, the Forum decides that the amount due to the consumer in the month of 08/2012 Rs.757/- be freezed. Surcharge for the maximum period of six months on the freezed amount be levied and balance amount be withdrawn. With this direction the case is closed from this Forum. The parties to bear their own cost. As required under Haryana State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Guidelines for establishment of Forum for Redressal of Grievances of consumers, Electricity Ombudsman and Consumer Advocacy) Regulations-2016, the implementation of this decision may be intimated to this office within 30 days from the date of its receipt.

16 -: 2 :- If the petitioner is not satisfied with the decision of CGRF, he has the right to file an appeal before the Electricity Ombudsman, Haryana, HERC, Bays No.33-36, Sector-4, Panchkula within one month from the date of receipt of the order of the Forum as per Regulation 2.59 of Haryana State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Guidelines for establishment of Forum for Redressal of Grievances of consumers, Electricity Ombudsman and Consumer Advocacy) Regulations File be consigned to record. Given under our hands on this day of 30 th May, (K.D.Bansal) (Rajesh Sharma) (Manu Bishnoi) Member Technical-cum-Chairman Member/Accounts Independent Member

17 FORUM FOR REDRESSAL OF CONSUMER GRIEVANCES DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM D-BLOCK, Ground Floor, Vidyut Sadan, Vidyut Nagar, Hisar- Telephone No (website: ( ID: Case No. DH/CGRF-1732/2017 Date of Institution: Date of Hearing: Date of Order: Before the Forum for Redressal of Consumer Grievances, DHBVN. Present:- K.D.Bansal, Member Technical-cum-Chairman Rajesh Sharma, Member Accounts Manu Bishnoi, Independent Member In the matter of complaint of Sh. Deepak Godara C/o Bala Ji Products, Hanuman Gate, Near Godara Ice Factory, Bhiwani regarding billing in KWH instead of KVAH... Complainant/Petitioner V/s. 1. Xen/Op. City Division, DHBVN, Bhiwani. 2.SDO/Op. City S/Division, DHBVN, Bhiwani..Respondents Appearance:- For Complainant: 1.Representative. For the Respondent: 1.Nodal Officer / CGRF, DHBVN,Hisar 2.Representative of SDO of City Sub-Division, DHBVN, Bhiwani.

18 ORDER Sh. Deepak Godara C/o Bala Ji Products, Hanuman Gate, Near Godara Ice Factory, Bhiwani has got an electricity connection bearing A/C No under SDO/Op. City Sub- Division, DHBVN, Bhiwani, hence this Forum has jurisdiction to hear the complaint. The complainant has filed the present complaint, stating therein that first of all, the department has issued bill on KWH reading and after that the bill issued by increasing 10% extra charges and now the bill issued on KVAH reading basis which is increased 450%. The department has not issued any notice regarding billing in KVAH reading. The complainant requested the Forum to get corrected his bill up to in KWH reading by adding 10% extra charges. The complaint was forwarded to the Nodal Officer for filing the written reply of the Nigam and both the parties were asked to appear before the Forum on 25/05/2017 at Bhiwani for hearing of the case. The proceedings held at Bhiwani on The representatives of consumer and respondent SDO were present. The SDO submitted reply through Nodal Officer/CGRF, vide his memo No. 651 dated , stating therein that the check meter was installed parallel to Meter A/C No. PT to check the accuracy of existing meter installed to the premises/site vide SJO No. 50/934 dated The details of old and new meter are as under:- Old Meter S.No Cap.3x10-60 Make- Avon Date New Check Meter Sr.No , Cap.3x10-60 Make Avon KWH Kvah KWH Kvah It is submitted that there is no difference between old meter and new check meter. Hence, bill is issued correctly. Copy of SJO No. 50/934 is attached. The representative of consumer was present and argued that inflated bill has been issued to him and the difference between KWH and KVAH reading is abnormally high and not justified by any standards. The consumer pleaded that he is a regular payee consumer and requested the Forum that his bill may be revised by applying standard power factor of.9 on KWH reading.

19 -: 2 :- During the course of hearing, the representative of consumer however agreed that after installation of automatic power factor controller (APFC), the difference between KWH and KVAH is normal and he is billed correctly. Keeping in view the above material on record, submissions by both the parties and arguments held during the course of hearing, the Forum observed that the consumer has been billed on KVAH basis as per applicable instructions of the licensee. The Forum further observed that a check meter has been installed by the sub-division after the consumer challenged the accuracy of the meter and results were found within permissible limit. The Forum, therefore, decides to dispose off the complaint as there is no merit in the complaint. The case is closed from this Forum. The parties to bear their own cost. If the petitioner is not satisfied with the decision of CGRF, he has the right to file an appeal before the Electricity Ombudsman, Haryana, HERC, Bays No.33-36, Sector-4, Panchkula within one month from the date of receipt of the order of the Forum as per Regulation 2.59 of Haryana State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Guidelines for establishment of Forum for Redressal of Grievances of consumers, Electricity Ombudsman and Consumer Advocacy) Regulations File be consigned to record. Given under our hands on this day of 30 th May, (K.D.Bansal) (Rajesh Sharma) (Manu Bishnoi) Member Technical-cum-Chairman Member/Accounts Independent Member

20 Forum for Redressal of Consumer Grievances DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM D-BLOCK, Ground Floor, Vidyut Sadan, Vidyut Nagar, Hisar (website: ( ID: Case No. DH/CGRF-1737/2017 Date of Institution: Date of Hearing: & Date of Order: Before the Forum for Redressal of Consumer Grievances, DHBVN. Present:- K.D.Bansal, Member Technical-cum-Chairman Rajesh Sharma, Member Accounts Manu Bishnoi, Independent Member In the matter of complaint of Sh. Sunil Kumar, V&P.O. Dungerwas, Rewari regarding billing problem... Complainant/Petitioner V/s 1. Xen/Op. Division, DHBVN, Rewari. 2.SDO/Op. City-II Sub-Division, DHBVN, Rewari. Appearance:- For Complainant: For the Respondent:.Respondents 1.Present. 1. Nodal Officer/CGRF, DHBVN,Hisar. 2.SDO/Op. City-II Sub-Divn., DHBVN, Rewari.

21 ORDER Sh. Sunil Kumar, V&P.O. Dungerwas, Rewari has got an electricity connection bearing A/C No. WW under SDO/Op. City-II Sub-Division, DHBVN, Rewari, hence this Forum has jurisdiction to hear the complaint. The complainant has filed the present complaint stating therein that the respondent has shown wrong reading in his bill which is units whereas his meter consumption is from 250 to 270 units. The consumer requested the Forum to get his bills corrected as per actual readings. The complaint was forwarded to the Nodal Officer for filing the written reply of the Nigam and both the parties were asked to appear before the Forum on at Rewari for hearing of the case. During the proceedings held at Rewari on , the consumer and representative of respondent SDO were present. The sub-division representative informed the Forum that due to late receipt of the complaint, reply could not be prepared and requested for next date. Requested allowed with the direction to file site checking report (LL-1) on or before the next date. The next date of hearing was fixed for Subsequent proceedings held at Rewari on The consumer and respondent SDO were present. The SDO submitted written reply through Nodal Officer/CGRF, vide his memo No dated , stating that the site of the consumer checked by (OP) Team, Dharuhera vide LL-1 No. 41/1056 dated and found the particulars of meter is follows:- Meter Sr. No , Meter make Genus, Capacity 10-60A, Meter Reading 89 Accuracy Blinking. It is also informed that MCO affected on dated vide MCO No. 46/1118 having meter reading Now the bill of consumer will be on actual basis. The consumption data of the consumer for the period 10/2016 to 4/2017 also placed on records. A copy of the reply furnished by the SDO was provided to the complainant. It was further brought on records before the Forum during arguments from the respondent side that the consumer has already approached this Forum regarding billing disputes, the matter for which already decided. The consumer also opted for the surcharge waiver scheme. The complainant agreed for the same. After going through the records and hearing of the parties, the Forum observed that the matter has already been heard and decided by this Forum vide case No.

22 1652/2017. The consumer already opted for the surcharge waiver scheme launched by the DHBVN and also deposited two instalments under the scheme. The meter of the consumer has already been replaced and working as per site checking report. The Forum therefore, finds no reason to intervene and pass fresh orders on this complaint. The complaint is therefore disposed off in terms of the reply of the SDO dated 22/06/2017 and earlier decision of this Forum dated 29/03/2017. The respondent SDO is however, to ensure that the future bills of the consumer are raised on actual consumption basis only. The case is closed. Both the parties to bear their own cost. As required under Haryana State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Guidelines for establishment of Forum for Redressal of Grievances of consumers, Electricity Ombudsman and Consumer Advocacy) Regulations-2016, the implementation of this decision may be intimated to this office within 30 days from the date of its receipt. If the petitioner is not satisfied with the decision of CGRF, he has the right to file an appeal before the Electricity Ombudsman, Haryana, HERC, Bays No.33-36, Sector-4, Panchkula within one month from the date of receipt of the order of the Forum as per Regulation 2.59 of Haryana State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Guidelines for establishment of Forum for Redressal of Grievances of consumers, Electricity Ombudsman and Consumer Advocacy) Regulations File be consigned to record. Given under our hands on this day of 27 th June, (K.D.Bansal) (Rajesh Sharma) (Manu Bishnoi) Member Technical-cum-Chairman Member/Accounts Independent Member

23 FORUM FOR REDRESSAL OF CONSUMER GRIEVANCES DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM D-BLOCK, Ground Floor, Vidyut Sadan, Vidyut Nagar, Hisar Telephone No (website: ( ID: Case No. DH/CGRF-1749/2017 Date of Institution: Date of Hearing: Date of Interim Order: Before the Forum for Redressal of Consumer Grievances, DHBVN. Present:- Sh. K.D.Bansal, Member Technical-cum-Chairman Sh. Rajesh Sharma, Member/Accounts Sh. Manu Bishnoi, Independent Member In the matter of complaint Sh. Tika Ram (User: Sh. Kunwar Pal), H.No. 1019, Parvitaya Colony, Faridabad regarding billing problem... Complainant/Petitioner V/s 1. Xen/Op. NIT Division, DHBVN, Faridabad. 2.SDO/Op. J/Colony S/Division, DHBVN, NIT Faridabad. Appearance:- For Complainant: For the Respondent:.Respondents 1.Present. 1.Nodal Officer, CGRF, DHBVN, Hisar 2.SDO/Op. J/Colony Sub-Divn., DHBVN, NIT Faridabad.

24 INTERIM ORDER Sh. Tika Ram (User: Sh. Kunwar Pal), H.No. 1019, Parvatiya Colony, Faridabad has got an electricity connection bearing A/C No under SDO/Op. J/Colony Sub-Division, DHBVN, NIT Faridabad, hence this Forum has jurisdiction to hear the complaint. The complainant has filed the present complaint (User: Sh. Kunwar Pal) stating therein that his meter was replaced by the3 Nigam about three years ago. No demand was raised and regular bills have been issued in the period of three years which he paid in time. However, in the current bill, a penalty has been levied, no reason/notice for levying penalty has been given. The complainant stated that he is a poor person and unable to pay the penalty and requested this Forum to get this penalty amount withdrawn. The complaint was forwarded to the Nodal Officer for filing the written reply of the Nigam and both the parties were asked to appear before the Forum on at Faridabad for hearing of the case. The proceedings held at Faridabad on The consumer and respondent SDO were present. The SDO submitted reply through Nodal Officer/CGRF, vide his memo No dated , stating therein that he has gone through the contents of the grievance and found that amount charged in the consumer account is against theft of electricity case framed by his office on the basis of M&P Lab report vide memo No.870 dated (copy enclosed). Accordingly the bill raised to the consumer as per instruction of the Nigam. The respondent SDO has also placed on record copies of advice of MCO and report of M&T Lab., Faridabad dated The SDO argued the case on the lines of written submissions. The consumer was present and pleaded that he is a regularly paying customer and paid all his bills regularly and is unaware about the charges suddenly levied in his bill after a gape of around three years. The consumer informed the Forum that the electricity supply to his premises has been disconnected leading to hardship to his family and requested the Forum to get his supply restored. Keeping in view the above material on record, submissions by both the parties and arguments held during the course of hearing, the Forum observed that the consumer has paid all his bills raised upto Feb., 2017 regularly and there is no arrears in respect of current payments. The supply to the consumer has been disconnected on account of arrears of past period which has been shown in the bill of April, 2017 without any notice by the sub-division. The Forum also observed that no proper procedure as envisaged in the Electricity Supply Code has been followed in this case and there is inordinate delay between the removal of the meter and its checking in the lab and further to the charging in the bill of the consumer. Considering the hardship caused by disconnection of supply, the Forum decides that the supply to the consumer may be restored immediately on payment of current dues by the consumer. The final order on merit of the case shall be issued after detailed hearing of both the parties and examination of the relevant records.

25 -: 2 :- The case is adjourned to the next date for conclusive hearing on The SDO is directed to remain present in person with the following records i.e. copy of MCO No. 81/153, Challan No.19/329, SC&AR No.312/R-76, consumption data of the last five years and copy of notice served upon the consumer, if any. Given under our hands on this day of (K.D.Bansal) (R K Sharma) (Manu Bishnoi) Member Technical-cum-Chairman Member/Accounts Independent Member

26 FORUM FOR REDRESSAL OF CONSUMER GRIEVANCES DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM D-BLOCK, Ground Floor, Vidyut Sadan, Vidyut Nagar, Hisar Telephone No (website: ( ID: Case No. DH/CGRF-1749/2017 Date of Institution: Date of Hearing: & Date of Order: Before the Forum for Redressal of Consumer Grievances, DHBVN. Present:- Sh. K.D.Bansal, Member Technical-cum-Chairman Sh. Rajesh Sharma, Member/Accounts Sh. Manu Bishnoi, Independent Member In the matter of complaint of Sh. Tika Ram (User: Sh. Kunwar Pal), H.No. 1019, Parvitaya Colony, Faridabad regarding billing problem... Complainant/Petitioner V/s 1. Xen/Op. NIT Division, DHBVN, Faridabad. 2.SDO/Op. J/Colony S/Division, DHBVN, NIT Faridabad. Appearance:- For Complainant: For the Respondent:.Respondents 1.Present. 1.Nodal Officer, CGRF, DHBVN, Hisar 2.SDO/Op. J/Colony Sub-Divn., DHBVN, NIT Faridabad.

27 ORDER Sh. Tika Ram (User: Sh. Kunwar Pal), H.No. 1019, Parvatiya Colony, Faridabad has got an electricity connection bearing A/C No under SDO/Op. J/Colony Sub-Division, DHBVN, NIT Faridabad, hence this Forum has jurisdiction to hear the complaint. The complainant has filed the present complaint (User: Sh. Kunwar Pal) stating therein that his meter was replaced by the Nigam about three years ago. No demand was raised and regular bills have been issued in the period of three years which he paid in time. However, in the current bill, a penalty has been levied, no reason/notice for levying penalty has been given. The complainant stated that he is a poor person and unable to pay the penalty and requested this Forum to get this penalty amount withdrawn. The complaint was forwarded to the Nodal Officer for filing the written reply of the Nigam and both the parties were asked to appear before the Forum on at Faridabad for hearing of the case. The proceedings held at Faridabad on The consumer and respondent SDO were present. The SDO submitted reply through Nodal Officer/CGRF, vide his memo No dated , stating therein that he has gone through the contents of the grievance and found that amount charged in the consumer account is against theft of electricity case framed by his office on the basis of M&P Lab report vide memo No.870 dated (copy enclosed). Accordingly the bill raised to the consumer as per instruction of the Nigam. The respondent SDO has also placed on record copies of advice of MCO and report of M&T Lab., Faridabad dated The SDO argued the case on the lines of written submissions. The consumer was present and pleaded that he is a regularly paying customer and paid all his bills regularly and is unaware about the charges suddenly levied in his bill after a gape of around three years. The consumer informed the Forum that the electricity supply to his premises has been disconnected leading to hardship to his family and requested the Forum to get his supply restored. Keeping in view the above material on record, submissions by both the parties and arguments held during the course of hearing, the Forum observed that the consumer has paid all his bills raised upto Feb., 2017 regularly and there is no arrears in respect of current payments. The supply to the consumer has been disconnected on account of arrears of past period which has been shown in the bill of April, 2017 without any notice by the sub-division. The Forum also observed that no proper procedure as envisaged in the Electricity Supply Code has been followed in this case and there is inordinate delay between the removal of the meter and its checking in the lab and further to the charging in the bill of the consumer. Considering the hardship caused by disconnection of supply, the Forum decides that the supply to the consumer may be restored immediately on payment of current dues by the consumer. The final order on merit of the case shall be issued after detailed hearing of both the parties and examination of the relevant records.

28 -: 2 :- With this interim order, the case was adjourned to the next date for conclusive hearing on The SDO was directed to remain present in person with the following records i.e. copy of MCO No. 81/153, Challan No.19/329, SC&AR No.312/R-76, consumption data of the last five years and copy of notice served upon the consumer, if any. The subsequent proceedings of the case held at Faridabad on The complainant and respondent SDO were present. The SDO filed a written statement through Nodal Officer vide No.3038 dated stating that the supply of the consumer has been restored as per interim order of CGRF and also placed on records the copy of challan No.19/329, SC&AR No.312/R-76 and consumption data of the consumer of the last five years. The complainant confirmed that the supply has been restored but requested the Forum to get the excess charges debited in his account withdrawn as per his written submission already filed before the Forum. After hearing both the parties and examination of the records placed in the case filed, the Forum observed that the consumption of electricity by the consumer in the last five years is consistent and there is no major variation which suggests pilferage or theft of electricity at his part. The consumer has paid all his bills raised by the Licensee in time and there is no default in current payments. The procedure adopted by the Sub Division for debiting the consumer account in this case is not in sync with the extent instructions of the Nigam. There were inordinate delays in sending the meter to the lab. by the JE in-charge of the Sub Division. No analysis of the consumption pattern as required in case has been made nor any notice before charging the amount has been issued to the consumer for a period of two years. Thus, the amount charged to the consumer through sundry No.312/R-76 is not justified and be withdrawn. The petition of the complainant is allowed. The amount charged be withdrawn. The case is closed. Both the parties to bear their own cost. As required under Haryana State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Guidelines for establishment of Forum for Redressal of Grievances of consumers, Electricity Ombudsman and Consumer Advocacy) Regulations-2016, the implementation of this decision may be intimated to this office within 30 days from the date of its receipt. If the petitioner is not satisfied with the decision of CGRF, he has the right to file an appeal before the Electricity Ombudsman, Haryana, HERC, Bays No.33-36, Sector-4, Panchkula within one month from the date of receipt of the order of the Forum as per Regulation 2.59 of Haryana State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Guidelines for establishment of Forum for Redressal of Grievances of consumers, Electricity Ombudsman and Consumer Advocacy) Regulations File be consigned to record. Given under our hands on this day of 11 th July, (K.D.Bansal) (R K Sharma) (Manu Bishnoi) Member Technical-cum-Chairman Member/Accounts Independent Member

29 FORUM FOR REDRESSAL OF CONSUMER GRIEVANCES DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM D-BLOCK, Ground Floor, Vidyut Sadan, Vidyut Nagar, Hisar Telephone No (website: ( ID: Case No. DH/CGRF-1751/2017 Date of Institution: Date of Hearing: & Date of Order: Before the Forum for Redressal of Consumer Grievances, DHBVN. Present:- Sh. K.D.Bansal, Member Technical-cum-Chairman Sh. Rajesh Sharma, Member/Accounts Sh. Manu Bishnoi, Independent Member In the matter of complaint M/s Asian Polymer, A/1/268, Ist Floor, Neelam Bata Road, NIT, Faridabad regarding billing problem... Complainant/Petitioner V/s 1. Xen/Op. Division, DHBVN, Ballabgarh. 2.SDO/Op. S/U S/Division, DHBVN, Ballabgarh. Appearance:- For Complainant: For the Respondent:.Respondents 1.Representative. 1.Nodal Officer, CGRF, DHBVN, Hisar 2.SDO/Op. S/U Sub-Divn., DHBVN, Ballabgarh.

30 ORDER M/s Asian Polymer, A/1/268, Ist Floor, Neelam Bata Road, NIT, Faridabad has got an electricity connection bearing A/C No under SDO/Op. S/U Sub-Division, DHBVN, Ballabgarh, hence this Forum has jurisdiction to hear the complaint. The complainant has filed the present complaint stating therein that his factory is closed since April, 2015 and there is no labour & office exist. The Nigam raised correct bills from April, 2015 to December, 2016 but the bill raised in January, 2017 is for Rs.1,35,159/- which is wrong. They visited the Nigam offices but the Nigam officials told him that their bill is correct and as per reading. They pleaded that their factory is closed then how the meter is working/taking reading to which no reply was given. The complainant requested the Forum to get their bill corrected. The complaint was forwarded to the Nodal Officer for filing the written reply of the Nigam and both the parties were asked to appear before the Forum on at Faridabad for hearing of the case. The proceedings held at Faridabad on The representatives of consumer and respondent SDO were present. The SDO submitted reply through Nodal Officer/CGRF, vide his memo No dated , stating therein that M/s Asian Polymer having A/C No in LT category with sanctioned load KW. There is CT operated meter existing with MF 2 and the billing is being done on the basis of KVAH consumption as per Nigam instruction. The bill has been generated on the basis of actual KVAH reading recorded by meter, accordingly the bill is already correct. Both the parties argued their case in line with the written submissions. After hearing the parties, the Forum decides to adjourn the case to next date with the direction to the SDO to get the meter checked from the M&P at site and produce the checking report before the Forum on the next date. Further proceedings of the case held at Faridabad on both the complainant and SDO were present. SDO informed the Forum that M&P team is at the site of the consumer for checking the meter as per orders of the Forum passed in the last hearing. The complainant who was present in the hearing was advised to associate the checking by the M&P. The complainant was also given an opportunity to argue or produce any other information/document pertaining to the case before the Forum. However, no additional information/document/argument put forth by the complaiant and the case was decided to be proceeded as per merits and M&P checking report.

31 M&P checking report dated has been made available by the respondent SDO and as per the checking report meter working and other parameters found to be within permissible limit and no abnormality was noticed and reported. Considering all the facts on record, the Forum decides to dispose off the complaint being devoid of any merit. Case is closed. Both the parties to bear their own cost. If the petitioner is not satisfied with the decision of CGRF, he has the right to file an appeal before the Electricity Ombudsman, Haryana, HERC, Bays No.33-36, Sector-4, Panchkula within one month from the date of receipt of the order of the Forum as per Regulation 2.59 of Haryana State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Guidelines for establishment of Forum for Redressal of Grievances of consumers, Electricity Ombudsman and Consumer Advocacy) Regulations File be consigned to record. Given under our hands on this day of 11 th July, (K.D.Bansal) (R K Sharma) (Manu Bishnoi) Member Technical-cum-Chairman Member/Accounts Independent Member

32 FORUM FOR REDRESSAL OF CONSUMER GRIEVANCES DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM D-BLOCK, Ground Floor, Vidyut Sadan, Vidyut Nagar, Hisar Telephone No (website: ( ID: Case No. DH/CGRF-1756/2017 Date of Institution: Date of Hearing: & Date of Order: Before the Forum for Redressal of Consumer Grievances, DHBVN. Present:- K.D.Bansal, Member Technical-cum-Chairman Rajesh Sharma, Member/Accounts Manu Bishnoi, Independent Member In the matter of complaint of Sh. Balwant S/o Sh. Deva Ram, Village, Devigarh Punia, Tehsil, Barwala, Distt., Hisar regarding billing problem. V/s.. Complainant/Petitioner 1. XEN/Op. Division No.2, DHBVN, Hisar. 2.SDO/Op. Sub-Division, DHBVN,Barwala..Respondents Appearance:- For Complainant: For the Respondent: 1.None. 1.Nodal Officer, CGRF, DHBVN, Hisar. 2.Representative of SDO/Op. Sub- Division, DHBVN, Barwala.

33 ORDER Sh. Balwant S/o Sh. Deva Ram, V&P.O. Devigarh Punia, Tehsil, Barwala, Distt., Hisar has got an electricity connection bearing A/C No. DP1D-173 under SDO/Op. Sub-Division, DHBVN, Barwala, hence this Forum has jurisdiction to hear the complaint. The complainant has filed the present complaint, stating therein that the bills has been raised on D code basis though the meter is recording consumption. Excess and inflated bills have now been raised due to non-taking of reading by the DHBVN and he is unable to pay such huge bills. The consumer requested to get his bills corrected and also checking of the meter. The complaint was forwarded to the Nodal Officer for filing the written reply of the Nigam and both the parties were asked to appear before the Forum on at Hisar for hearing of the case. The proceedings held at Hisar on The consumer was not present but the representative of respondent SDO was present. The SDO submitted written reply through Nodal Officer/CGRF vide memo No dated , stating therein that the DS connection was released to the consumer with KW load. For the period 08/2014 to 06/2016, the consumer was billed on F-Code basis. After verification, it was observed that meter working is OK and on the basis of actual consumption, bill was revised for entire period and notice of difference Rs.33005/- was sent to the consumer vide No dated After receiving the notice, the consumer approached the sub-division for correction of bill. The energy bill difference was Rs.15891/- but this amount was not deposited by the consumer, so this amount was charged into the account of consumer. Sundry copy attached. The consumer was not present. The Forum observed that there are discrepancies in the reply filed by the SDO. The notice issued to the consumer was for Rs.33005/- but the amount charged through sundry shown as Rs.15891/-. As per consumption data filed before the Forum, the new reading in the month of 02/2017 was shown as 8180 but in the month of 04/2017, the current reading shown as No meter status/checking report is placed before the Forum. In view of the above, the case is adjourned to next date with the direction to the SDO to attend the hearing in person with full details of the case i.e. meter status, current reading and up to date amount chargeable from the consumer. Further proceedings of the case held at Hisar on , the complainant was not present but the representative of (OP) Sub Divn Barwala was present. A written statement on behalf of SDO was filed vide No.3809 dated alongwith meter checking report and copy of sundry/adjustment made in the consumer account.

34 As per meter checking report filed, the last reading verified is kwh, meter working found OK. Sub Division representative informed the Forum that the consumer has been charged correctly based on the actual consumption, the average reading has already been adjusted hence the complaint may be filed. The Forum noted that the complainant has not attended the proceedings of the Forum on continuously two occasions nor deputed any representative to plead the case on his behalf. It is further observed that the meter installed at consumer premises is working ok, actual consumption has been verified and the chargeable amount has been worked out after adjusting the provisional billing of the prior period. No further action at the end of Sub Divn is required. The Forum therefore, decides to dispose of the complaint in terms of reply of SDO. Case is closed. Parties to bear their own cost. If the petitioner is not satisfied with the decision of CGRF, he has the right to file an appeal before the Electricity Ombudsman, Haryana, HERC, Bays No.33-36, Sector- 4, Panchkula within one month from the date of receipt of the order of the Forum as per Regulation 2.59 of Haryana State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Guidelines for establishment of Forum for Redressal of Grievances of consumers, Electricity Ombudsman and Consumer Advocacy) Regulations File be consigned to record. Given under our hands on this day of 12 th July, (K.D.Bansal) (Rajesh Sharma) (Manu Bishnoi) Member Technical Member/Accounts Independent Member -cum-chairman

35 FORUM FOR REDRESSAL OF CONSUMER GRIEVANCES DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM D-BLOCK, Ground Floor, Vidyut Sadan, Vidyut Nagar, Hisar (website: ( ID: Case No. DH/CGRF-1759/2017 Date of Institution: Date of Hearing: & Date of order: 5/07/2017 Before the Forum for Redressal of Consumer Grievances, DHBVN. Present:- K.D.Bansal, Member Technical-cum-Chairman Rajesh Sharma, Member Accounts Manu Bishnoi, Independent Member In the matter of complaint of Sh. Rajender S/o Sh. Ram Dhari, Village, Padana, P.O. Nidani, Tehsil & Distt., Jind regarding change in connected load and consequential disallowance of benefits of arrear waiver scheme... Complainant/Petitioner V/s 1. Xen/Op. Division, DHBVN,Jind. 2.SDO, S/U Sub-Division No.2, DHBVN, Jind. Appearance:- For Complainant: For the Respondent:.Respondents 1.Present. 1.Nodal Officer/CGRF, DHBVN,Hisar. 2.SDO, S/U Sub-Divn. No.2, DHBVN, Jind.

36 ORDER Sh. Rajender S/o Sh. Ram Dhari, Village, Padana, P.O. Nidani, Tehsil & Distt., Jind has got an electricity connection bearing A/C No. PD11-055P under SDO, S/U Sub-Division No.2, DHBVN, Jind, hence this Forum has jurisdiction to hear the complaint. The complainant has filed the present complaint stating therein that his electricity bill is pending and he wants to clear the arrear of bill by seeking benefit of Haryana Govt./DHBVN Ltd. Scheme for 2 KW load up to His sanction load is 2.1 KW and the SDO/XEN/SE, DHBVN, Jind are not giving the benefit of scheme saying that his load in above 2 KW. The report of actual load has been made by ALM and JE concerned which is below 2 KW (Attached as A ). In view of above, it is requested that his pending bill may be got cleared by providing benefit of scheme of the Deptt./Govt. with load up to 2 KW before He shall be thankful if concerned SDO/XEN/SE is instructed by the Forum to get deposit his pending bill amount after giving benefit of scheme up to 2 KW before please. The complaint was forwarded to the Nodal Officer for filing the written reply of the Nigam and both the parties were asked to appear before the Forum on at Jind for hearing of the case. The proceedings held at Jind on The consumer and the respondent SDO were present. The SDO submitted reply through Nodal Officer/CGRF vide his memo No dated , stating that the benefit of scheme could not be extend to the complainant/consumer as per terms & condition of the sales circular No. 35/2016 dated vide which the surcharge waiver scheme has been launched and further extended up to vide sales circular No. 17/2017 dated copy of both attached as Annexure A&B. The scheme is applicable to the domestic and non-domestic consumers up to 2 KW in rural areas (connected or disconnected). But the sanctioned load of the consumer is 2.1 KW as per record of his office. Hence, the consumer does not falls in the category of consumer to which scheme is applicable. In view of above, it is requested to dispose off the complaint in the best interest of justices as there is no violation of instruction of Nigam in the matter. A copy of the reply of the SDO was handed over to the consumer. The consumer was however, not agreed to the version of the SDO and insisted that his load is not 2 KW and the same has been taken in the records wrongly. The actual load as per site verification also found much less than 2 KW.

37 After hearing both the parties the Forum asked the SDO to produce before the Forum the A&A Forum submitted by the consumer alongwith complete consumer case file, service connection register and register of the consumer security so as to verify whether the applied load is actually 2 KW or not. The SDO requested for time to get the old records traced and produced before the Forum. The request allowed. Subsequent hearing held at Jind on 4/07/2017. The complainant and the respondent SDO were present. SDO filed reply stating that the service connection register, consumption security register prior to 1990 are not available in the Sub Divn record. However, the ledgers are available and as per the entry of sanctioned load of the consumer in the ledger is 2.1 KW since September-1998 onwards. Copy of the consumer ledger placed on record. The SDO prayed for the dismissal of the complaint as the consumer has neither raised any objection regarding the sanctioned load earlier nor paid any bills. A copy of the reply of the SDO was handed over to the complainant who was not satisfied and argued that his sanctioned load is less than 2.0 KW and the benefit of surcharge of scheme may be allowed to him as he is willing to settle the outstanding bills. After hearing both the parties and examining the records available in the case file, the Forum observed that the sanctioned load of the consumer is more than 2.0 KW (2.1 KW) as per available records since The surcharge waiver scheme is applicable to the consumers having load upto 2.0 KW hence the consumer is not entitled to be covered under the surcharge waiver scheme. The Forum therefore, finds no merit in the complaint and dismisses the same. The case is closed. Both the parties to bear their own costs. If the petitioner is not satisfied with the decision of CGRF, he has the right to file an appeal before the Electricity Ombudsman, Haryana, HERC, Bays No.33-36, Sector-4, Panchkula within one month from the date of receipt of the order of the Forum as per Regulation 2.59 of Haryana State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Guidelines for establishment of Forum for Redressal of Grievances of consumers, Electricity Ombudsman and Consumer Advocacy) Regulations File be consigned to record. Given under our hands on this day of 5 th July, (K.D.Bansal) (Rajesh Sharma) (Manu Bishnoi) Member Technical-cum-Chairman Member/Accounts Independent Member

38 FORUM FOR REDRESSAL OF CONSUMER GRIEVANCES DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM D-BLOCK, Ground Floor, Vidyut Sadan, Vidyut Nagar, Hisar Telephone No (website: ( ID: Case No. DH/CGRF-1761/2017 Date of Institution: Date of Hearing: & Date of Order: Before the Forum for Redressal of Consumer Grievances, DHBVN. Present:- K.D.Bansal, Member Technical-cum-Chairman Rajesh Sharma, Member/Accounts Manu Bishnoi, Independent Member In the matter of complaint of M/s Surya Aerotech Industries Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 138, Sector-3, IMT, Manesar, Gurgaon regarding billing problem... Complainant/Petitioner V/s 1. Xen/Op. Division, DHBVN, Manesar. 2. SDO/Op. Sub-Division, DHBVN, Manesar..Respondents Appearance:- For Complainant: For the Respondent: 1.Representative. 1.Nodal Officer, CGRF, DHBVN, Hisar 2.Representative of SDO of Sub- Divn., DHBVN, Manesar.

39 ORDER M/s Surya Aerotech Industries Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 138, Sector-3, IMT, Manesar, Gurgaon have got an electricity connection bearing A/C No.BA F under SDO/Op. Sub-Division, DHBVN, Manesar, hence this Forum has jurisdiction to hear the complaint. The complainant has filed the present complaint stating therein that during the month of July, 2015, a new meter was installed and meter checked vide DHBVN Book No. G 928 dated 17/07/2015 with reading in both KVAH and KWH 1.3 on installation. The reason for change of new meters, its function and consumption reading was not explained to the firm on installation of new meter. He has constantly writing to DHBVN as per his letters and the undersigned also visited repeatedly every month to appraise the DHBV SDO & JE regarding not getting the proiper bill. After a lapse of six months, he was surprised to have bill for Feb., 2016 on average basis but showing exorbitant arrears. This not only disturbed them but also put a heavy financial burden on SSI unit for no fault of theirs. This was due to sheer negligence on the part of DHBVN by billing them on average basis till January, 2016 and not taking any remedial action on their complaints. Being an SSI unit, he has not defaulted in payment of their bills even through it is beyond their economical capacity to pay the very high charges towards electrical bill, when their consumption pattern has not changed due to any additional load. As per their calculation, he has paid almost over Rs.1,30,000/- extra during the period till January, This is purely due to the negligence of DHBVN for not submitting bill as on actual reading inspite of their repeated request and reminder. He regrets to state that despite the above correspondence on the subject and personal visit by the undersigned, he is yet to receive any response from DHBVN. Hence, he request to look into this aspect and arrange for the refund of excess amount collected by DHBVN from them due no fault of theirs alternatively, he has no option but to put their grievances to the consumer court for favourable decisions. The complaint was forwarded to the Nodal Officer for filing the written reply of the Nigam and both the parties were asked to appear before the Forum on at Gurgaon for hearing of the case. During the proceedings held at Gurgaon on , the representatives of consumer and respondent SDO were present. The SDO submitted reply through Nodal Officer/CGRF, vide his meko No. 677 dated , stating that the complaint was received in his office on 25/05/2017 and due to pre-occupation in ORC, the reply could not be prepared and requested for next date to file the detailed written reply in the matter. Request allowed. The case was adjourned to the next date i.e Subsequent proceedings held at Gurgaon on The representatives of consumer and respondent SDO were present. The SDO submitted written reply through Nodal Officer/CGRF, vide his memo No dated stating therein that:- 1. The connection is running under MS category with sanctioned load of 46 KW and MF-20 bearing A/C No. IMS-182 (BA ) in the name of M/s Surya Aerotech Industries, Plot No. 138/3, IMT, Manesar.

40 -: 2 :- 2. The ledger copy for the period 08/2014 to 05/2017 is attached for billing details of the consumer. 3. The consumer meter was replaced vide MCO No. 53/1064 dated and billed on N-Code (Avg. basis) from 08/2015 to 12/ The consumer A/C has been overhauled for the period 08/2015 to 12/2015 as per new meter units billed in 01/2016 and a sum of Rs.55177/- charged vide SC&AR No. 221/89R (copy attached). 5. A sum of Rs.7723/- adjusted vide SC&AR No. 330/89R (copy attached) on account of average billing for the month of 01/ In the month of 06/2016, consumer billed excess due to wrong reading and the same has been corrected for Rs /- vide SC&AR No. 99/90R in the month of 08/2016 billing. 7. It is also submitted that the billing done by the Billing Agency as per Nigam Sales Circular No. D-13/2015 on KVAH reading w.e.f. 06/2015. It is further submitted that as per the billing detail in ledger, adjustments/overhauling made in the consumer account is in accordance of the Nigam instructions. Hence, there is no excess amount charged for the period Oct., 2015 to till date. A copy of the reply was handed over to the representative of the consumer for his examination and argue the case accordingly. The consumer representative while arguing, mainly contended that the amount charged for the period under dispute is not commensurate with his past bills. No argument on the basis of fact brought out by the SDO in his reply was put forth by the complainant before the Forum and it was prayed to consider the matter sympathetically theirs being a small scale industry, their average bills for Rs.12000/-to Rs.13000/- per month in the past and no new/additional load/machinery added during the period under dispute. The representative of the sub-division argued the case in line with the written submissions and insisted that no extra charges has been levied and the bills are raised as per actual consumption and the meter installed at the consumer site is working properly. After hearing both the parties and examination of the records placed in the case file, the Forum observed that the consumer premises was checked by the M&P wing of the Licensee in March, 2016 and further the meter working also checked by the JE IN-charge of the area and no abnormality noticed. The consumer has been charged as per actual consumption recorded in the meter as also verified by the JE In-charge from time to time. The contention of the consumer that his bills for a particular period are higher compared to the past bills cannot be admitted as the amount of bill is based on the consumption recorded by the meter. The Forum, therefore, find no merit in the complaint and decides to dispose off the same in terms of reply of the respondent SDO dated The case is closed. Both the parties to bear their own cost.

41 -: 3 :- If the petitioner is not satisfied with the decision of CGRF, he has the right to file an appeal before the Electricity Ombudsman, Haryana, HERC, Bays No.33-36, Sector-4, Panchkula within one month from the date of receipt of the order of the Forum as per Regulation 2.59 of Haryana State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Guidelines for establishment of Forum for Redressal of Grievances of consumers, Electricity Ombudsman and Consumer Advocacy) Regulations File be consigned to record. Given under our hands on this day of 30 th June, (K.D.Bansal) (Rajesh Sharma) (Manu Bishnoi) Member Technical- Member/Accounts Independent Member Cum-Chairman

42 Forum for Redressal of Consumer Grievances DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM D-BLOCK, Ground Floor, Vidyut Sadan, Vidyut Nagar, Hisar (website: ( ID: Case No. DH/CGRF-1764/2017 Date of Institution: Date of Hearing: & Date of Order: Before the Forum for Redressal of Consumer Grievances, DHBVN. Present:- K.D.Bansal, Member Technical-cum-Chairman Rajesh Sharma, Member Accounts Manu Bishnoi, Independent Member In the matter of complaint of Ex.Sub. Bhim Singh Yadav S/o Sh. Shadi Ram Yadav, V&P.O. Mastapur, Rewari regarding disconnection of un-authorized DS connection in the name of Sh. Ashok Kumar S/o Sh. Om Parkash, V&P.O. Mastapur, Rewari. V/s.. Complainant/Petitioner 1. Xen/Op. Division, DHBVN, Kosli. 2.SDO/Op. Sub-Division, DHBVN, Palawas. Appearance:- For Complainant: For the Respondent:.Respondents 1.Present. 1.Nodal Officer/CGRF, DHBVN,Hisar. 2.Representative of SDO/Op. Sub-Divn., DHBVN, Palawas.

43 ORDER Ex. Sub. Bhim Singh Yadav S/o Sh. Shadi Ram Yadav, V&P.O. Mastapur, Rewari has made the present complaint regarding disconnection of un-authorized DS connection in the name of Sh. Ashok Kumar S/o Sh. Om Parkash, V&P.O. Mastapur, Rewari under SDO/Op. Sub-Division, DHBVN, Palawas, causing nuisance to the complainant, hence this Forum has jurisdiction to hear the complaint. The complainant has filed the present complaint stating therein that his case in revenue court for his land distribution not for domestic connection. As per land sketch, four houses are already constructed in this land with domestic connection; other land is vacant for agriculture. In this land tube well are already functioning i.e. one for Bhim Singh and other for Kartar Singh. These tube wells are working with diesel engine. In this land two domestic connections had been given one for Kanwar Singh S/o Sh. Maha Singh and other for Ashok Kumar S/o Sh. Om Parkash and they are using as a single phase tube well. Ashok Kumar is not a owner in this land. The complainant has requested this Forum to get the un-authorized agriculture connections released in the name of domestic connections removed. The complaint was forwarded to the Nodal Officer for filing the written reply of the Nigam and both the parties were asked to appear before the Forum on at Rewari for hearing of the case. During the proceedings held at Rewari on , the consumer and representative of respondent SDO were present. The SDO submitted reply through Nodal Officer/CGRF, vide his memo No dated , stating therein that a complaint regarding disconnection of un-authorization DS connection in the name of Sh. Ashok Kumar S/o Sh. Om Parkash, V&P.O. Mastapur received in his office. After searching the record, the concern official submitted that the A&A file not available in the office record. The connection was released on dated as reported by the concern official. The complainant was present and argued his case on the line of written submissions and also contended that the documents are not being produced before the Forum by the sub-division deliberately. After hearing both the parties, the Forum has taken serious note of in action at the part of the sub-division particularly with regards to not carrying out the checking at the site even after receipt of earlier complaint by the complainant and the grievance forwarded by this Forum. The Forum directed the SDO to take the following action:-

44 -: 2 :- 1. Carry out the site inspection for ascertaining the facts about un-authorized tube well connections running in his area as per the complaint and take action as per Nigam instructions. 2. To lodge a Police Complaint regarding missing consumer file from his office. The case was adjourned to the next date i.e The SDO and Nodal Officer/CGRF to ensure filing of status report on the directives of the CGRF as per 1 & 2 above alongwith photographs of the site. The proceedings held at Rewari on The consumer and representative of sub-division were present. The sub-division representative placed on record a copy of letter of SDO stating that the site of the connection at village Mastapur has been checked by Dharmender, JE and the connection found running from domestic feeder village Mastapur. It is also stated that the connection is not in agriculture field. The sub-division representative also placed on record a copy of complete consumer case file. On enquiry about the copy of LL-1 and photograph at site etc., the sub-division representative stated that no such LL-1 and photography has been prepared by the JE. The complainant was present and argued on the lines of the written submission besides informing the Forum that the connection has been released to Sh. Ashok Kumar by the respondent Nigam in the portion of land belonging to him (Complainant). He further informed that after the complaint has been processed by the Forum, the electric motor installed at the connection site has been removed but the connection still exists. The complainant insisted that irregular connection released in his land by the respondent Nigam in connivance with the staff of the sub-division may be got removed. The Forum took a serious note of non-compliance of its directives with regards to checking of the site, preparing LL-1 and carrying out photography by the sub-division staff and directed to do the needful and file the status report. The SDO/Op. Sub-Division, Palawas vide letter dated has intimated that the premises has been checked by Sh. Dharmender Singh, JE(F) vide LL-1 No. 14/724 dated During the checking a small room was found on main way of village Mastapur near Bus Stand. The DS connection was found having A/C No. NP1D with connected load of 2 KW. Meter found installed at pole and supply feeding from 100 KVA T/F of LD system 11KV Mastapur feeder. The DOC is and consumption of meter up to date i.e is 647 KWH. At the time of checking no bore and tube well found but room (Kothri) was locked and the consumer Sh. Ashok Kumar was not available for associating in the checking. Videography taken at site. After examining the records placed by the complainant and respondent SDO and hearing both the parties, the Forum observed that no proper procedure has been followed in release of this connection as is evident from the following facts:-

45 -: 3 :- 1. The photograph of the premises attached with the A&A Form indicates that the premises is a small kothri as usually exists at the tube well sites and has no resemblance with the dwelling units. 2. The connection was released in 06/2014 without obtaining the ownership proof as is evident from the consumer case file. 3. After receipt of the complaint by another party in this regard on dated , the SDO/Op., Palawas has written a letter to the consumer on dated vide memo No.1905 admitting therein that proper ownership documents have not been submitted by the consumer and the land belong to the complainant Sh. Bhim Singh. Even no site checking was carried out at this stage as no such papers is available in the case file. 4. Later on a rent agreement vide stamp paper No. 38AA entered into between Sh. Om Parkash S/o Sh. Maha Singh and Sh. Ashok Kumar S/o Sh. Om Parkash, attested and Notarized on along with copy of Fard was obtained and placed in the consumer case file to satisfy the requirement of ownership documents. 5. In the rent agreement and documents attached with it shows that the name of Sh. Om Parkash S/o Sh. Maha Singh (Landlord in the rent agreement) does not appear in the FARD (KHEVAT NO. 148/143, KHATUNI NO. 272/269), attached with the rent agreement. 6. One Sh. Kartar Singh S/o Sh Ganpat Singh also made a complaint to the sub division on 21/01/2015 regarding release of irregular TWC in the name of Sh. Ashok Kumar, the compliant was marked to Sh. Dharmender JE but no action has been taken by the sub division as per records available in the consumer case file. 7. In the written submissions filed by the SDO, it is mentioned that the connection is not installed in the Agriculture Field which appears to be incorrect as no Registry/Ownership proof is found in the case file but copy of FARD is attached along with rent agreement which suggests that the connection is actually installed at agriculture land. 8. Even after the directions of this Forum, no proper checking of the site has been carried out nor any photography/videography placed on records/found attached with the checking report. The checking is carried out by Sh. Dharmender, JE alone without associating any other evidence and even the consumer. The statement of facts i.e. the details of consumption data, status of meter installed at the pole, non-existence of any bore at site and non-availability/associating the consumer in the checking report as mentioned in the SDO letter dated

46 have not been specifically mentioned/corroborated in the checking report (LL-1). Keeping in view the above facts, the Forum is of the considered opinion that proper procedure have not been adopted in release the 2 KW DS connection in a small Kothri situated on agriculture land in the name of Sh. Ashok Kumar S/o Sh. Om Parkash without proper ownership documents and the sub-division continued to adopt in-different attitude in carrying out the checking and eliminate the possibilities of un-authorized usage of electricity/theft even after receiving complaints and directions by this Forum. The Forum, therefore, decides that a Vigilance Enquiry may be carried out by XEN/Vigilance, DHBVN, Rewari in the matter of release of this connection and the events thereafter (e.g. usage of DS connection for agriculture purpose) and responsibility of erring officers/officials fixed including connivance for theft if any, within a period of 30 days. With this direction, the application is disposed off. The case is closed. The parties to bear their own cost. As required under Haryana State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Guidelines for establishment of Forum for Redressal of Grievances of consumers, Electricity Ombudsman and Consumer Advocacy) Regulations-2016, the implementation of this decision may be intimated to this office within 30 days from the date of its receipt. If the petitioner is not satisfied with the decision of CGRF, he has the right to file an appeal before the Electricity Ombudsman, Haryana, HERC, Bays No.33-36, Sector-4, Panchkula within one month from the date of receipt of the order of the Forum as per Regulation 2.59 of Haryana State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Guidelines for establishment of Forum for Redressal of Grievances of consumers, Electricity Ombudsman and Consumer Advocacy) Regulations File be consigned to record. Given under our hands on this day of 27 th June, (K.D.Bansal) (Rajesh Sharma) (Manu Bishnoi) Member Technical-cum-Chairman Member/Accounts Independent Member

47 FORUM FOR REDRESSAL OF CONSUMER GRIEVANCES DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM D-BLOCK, Ground Floor, Vidyut Sadan, Vidyut Nagar, Hisar (website: ( ID: Case No. DH/CGRF-1767/2017 Date of Institution: Date of Hearing: Date of Order: Before the Forum for Redressal of Consumer Grievances, DHBVN. Present:- K.D.Bansal, Member Technical-cum-Chairman Rajesh Sharma, Member Accounts Manu Bishnoi, Independent Member In the matter of complaint of Sh. Yogender Kumar S/o Sh. Umed Singh, Village, Khayra, P.O. Khatod, Mohindergarh regarding billing problem... Complainant/Petitioner V/s 1. Xen/Op. Division, DHBVN, Mohindergarh. 2.SDO/Op. City Sub-Division, DHBVN, Mohindergarh. Appearance:- For Complainant: For the Respondent:.Respondents 1.Present. 1. Nodal Officer/CGRF, DHBVN,Hisar. 2. SDO/Op. City Sub-Divn., DHBVN, Mohindergarh.

48 ORDER Sh. Yogender Kumar S/o Sh. Umed Singh, Village, Khayra, P.O. Khatod, Mohindergarh has got an electricity connection bearing A/C No. CT-SI-0034 under SDO/Op. City Sub-Division, DHBVN, Mohindergarh, hence this Forum has jurisdiction to hear the complaint. The complainant has filed the present complaint stating therein that the present connection is running in the name of his father. The bill for the period Dec., 2006 to Jan., 2007 was prepared excessively. The bill was about Rs.23000/- which was shown as Rs.52000/-. He requested for correction of bill and even after launching of various schemes of surcharge waiver and out of court settlement, his bill was not corrected. Now about one month ago, the department has admitted its mistake and corrected the bill of However, the bill of Rs.23000/- as on 2006 has increased to Rs /- due to levy of surcharge for which he is not at fault as had the bill corrected,by DHBVN in 2006, the surcharge of Rs /- would not have been levied. The consumer requested the Forum to get the surcharge amount withdrawn. The complaint was forwarded to the Nodal Officer for filing the written reply of the Nigam and both the parties were asked to appear before the Forum on at Narnaul for hearing of the case. The proceedings held at Narnaul on The complainant and respondent SDO were present. The SDO submitted reply through Nodal Officer/CGRF, vide his memo No dated stating that the consumer represented regarding correction of his bill and as per record available meter reading shown R (round complete) code during 09/2006 and reading shown as during 01/2007 due to which bill raised on difference of units i.e Bill of consumer corrected vide SC&AR No. 106/45/230 and an amount of Rs.25260/- as principle and Rs /- as surcharge has been adjusted in the consumer account. A copy of the reply was handed over to the complainant who was not satisfied with the reply of the SDO and decided to argue the case further before the Forum. The complainant argued that the amount adjusted by the SDO now is not correct and full amount of surcharge levied on the wrong billing initially raised against his connection in the year 2006 has not been reversed by the SDO. The complainant stated that he has complete details/calculations and ready to provide the same to the sub-division. The respondent SDO agreed to re-look into the calculations. After hearing both the parties the Forum observed that the principle contention of the complainant regarding raising of wrong bill in the year 2006 has been admitted by the respondent SDO and the bill amount has been corrected. However, the issue remains is of the calculations of the surcharge levied on the incorrect bill. The Forum, therefore, decides to dispose off the complaint in terms of the reply of SDO with the direction to the SDO that the entire calculations of adjustment of surcharge may be reviewed and full amount of surcharge levied on the principle amount of wrong initially raised during 2006 may be withdrawn. The case is closed. The parties to bear their own cost.

49 -: 2 :- As required under Haryana State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Guidelines for establishment of Forum for Redressal of Grievances of consumers, Electricity Ombudsman and Consumer Advocacy) Regulations-2016, the implementation of this decision may be intimated to this office within 30 days from the date of its receipt. If the petitioner is not satisfied with the decision of CGRF, he has the right to file an appeal before the Electricity Ombudsman, Haryana, HERC, Bays No.33-36, Sector-4, Panchkula within one month from the date of receipt of the order of the Forum as per Regulation 2.59 of Haryana State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Guidelines for establishment of Forum for Redressal of Grievances of consumers, Electricity Ombudsman and Consumer Advocacy) Regulations File be consigned to record. Given under our hands on this day of 27 th June, (K.D.Bansal) (Rajesh Sharma) (Manu Bishnoi) Member Technical-cum-Chairman Member/Accounts Independent Member

50 Forum for Redressal of Consumer Grievances DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM D-BLOCK, Ground Floor, Vidyut Sadan, Vidyut Nagar, Hisar (website: ( ID: Case No. DH/CGRF-1769/2017 Date of Institution: Date of Hearing: Date of Order: Before the Forum for Redressal of Consumer Grievances, DHBVN. Present:- K.D.Bansal, Member Technical-cum-Chairman Rajesh Sharma, Member Accounts Manu Bishnoi, Independent Member In the matter of complaint of Sh. Niranjan Lal S/o Sh. Shri Ram, H.No. 2492, Gali Bindawali, Near Jiwali Bazar, Rewari regarding metering problem... Complainant/Petitioner V/s 1. Xen/Op. Division, DHBVN, Rewari. 2.SDO/Op. City-1 Sub-Division, DHBVN, Rewari. Appearance:- For Complainant: For the Respondent:.Respondents 1.None. 1.Nodal Officer/CGRF, DHBVN,Hisar. 2.SDO/Op. City-1 Sub-Divn., DHBVN, Rewari.

51 ORDER Sh. Niranjan Lal S/o Sh. Shri Ram, H.No. 2492, Gali Bindawali, Near Jiwali Bazar, Rewari has got an electricity connection bearing A/C No. BB1DD-959 under SDO/Op. City-1 Sub-Division, DHBVN, Rewari, hence this Forum has jurisdiction to hear the complaint. The complainant has filed the present complaint stating therein that his meter is defective/burnt. He make a request to the concerned office on but the meter has not been replaced. The consumer requested the Forum to get his meter replaced as per Nigam instructions enabling him to make the payments of energy bills as per consumption recorded by the meter. The complaint was forwarded to the Nodal Officer for filing the written reply of the Nigam and both the parties were asked to appear before the Forum on at Rewari for hearing of the case. The proceedings held at Rewari on The consumer was not present but the respondent SDO was present. The SDO submitted reply through Nodal Officer/CGRF, vide his memo No dated , stating therein that the consumer had submitted application on reporting burnt meter due to fire. The complaint staff was deputed by area in-charge who could not locate the site due to wrong account number group in application (DD group instead of BD). The consumer approached his office again on Sh. Dhiraj Kumar, JE was deputed to visit the site and verified that meter burnt. The meter has been replaced on after depositing the cost of meter from the consumer. The SDO requested to close the complaint as per action already taken. As the defective meter of the consumer already replaced by the respondent SDO, the Forum decides to dispose off the complaint in terms of the reply/action taken filed by the sub-division vide letter dated The case is closed. The parties to bear their own cost. If the petitioner is not satisfied with the decision of CGRF, he has the right to file an appeal before the Electricity Ombudsman, Haryana, HERC, Bays No.33-36, Sector-4, Panchkula within one month from the date of receipt of the order of the Forum as per Regulation 2.59 of Haryana State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Guidelines for establishment of Forum for Redressal of Grievances of consumers, Electricity Ombudsman and Consumer Advocacy) Regulations File be consigned to record. Given under our hands on this day of 27 th June, (K.D.Bansal) (Rajesh Sharma) (Manu Bishnoi) Member Technical-cum-Chairman Member/Accounts Independent Member

52 Forum for Redressal of Consumer Grievances DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM D-BLOCK, Ground Floor, Vidyut Sadan, Vidyut Nagar, Hisar (website: ( ID: Case No. DH/CGRF-1770/2017 Date of Institution: Date of Hearing: Date of Order: Before the Forum for Redressal of Consumer Grievances, DHBVN. Present:- K.D.Bansal, Member Technical-cum-Chairman Rajesh Sharma, Member Accounts Manu Bishnoi, Independent Member In the matter of complaint of Sh. Karan Singh S/o Sh. Ramji Lal, Village, Balawas Ahir, Rewari regarding billing problem... Complainant/Petitioner V/s 1. Xen/Op. Division, DHBVN, Rewari. 2.SDO/Op. S/U Sub-Division, DHBVN, Rewari. Appearance:- For Complainant: For the Respondent:.Respondents 1.None. 1.Nodal Officer/CGRF, DHBVN,Hisar. 2.Representative of SDO/Op. S/U Sub-Divn., DHBVN, Rewari.

53 ORDER Sh. Karan Singh S/o Shj. Ramji Lal, Village, Balawas Ahir, Rewari has got an electricity connection bearing A/C No. BP1D-0800-A under SDO/Op. S/U Sub-Division, DHBVN, Rewari, hence this Forum has jurisdiction to hear the complaint. The complainant has filed the present complaint stating therein that his meter working is OK. The audit party has charged extra amount in his bill which is not justified. He stated that due to some construction work in a particular period, the energy consumption was high. This period has been taken as base for overhauling the account whereas his prior/current bills are all of normal consumption and the amount charged by the audit is not justified. The consumer requested this Forum to get the excess charges in his bill withdrawn. The complaint was forwarded to the Nodal Officer for filing the written reply of the Nigam and both the parties were asked to appear before the Forum on at Rewari for hearing of the case. The proceedings held at Rewari on The consumer was not present but the representative of respondent SDO was present. The SDO submitted reply through Nodal Officer/CGRF, vide his memo No dated , stating therein that the account of the consumer was overhauled by the audit party through half margin No. 74 and a sum of Rs.5159/- was charged in consumer account and period overhaul from 06/2013 to 04/2014 as average of 240 units was charged due to meter burnt and new meter base was 434 units per billing. A Copy of the half margin is attached. It was observed that the consumer meter remain defective for the period 04/2013 to 02/2014 and was charged on average 240 units per billing cycle. The audit party has overhauled the account of the consumer by taking the base of 468 units which was the consumption recorded in the meter in 09/2014 and proposed an amount of Rs.7600/- to be charged from the consumer. The sub-division while posting the half margin in the consumer account has taken base of 434 units as per average of three billing cycles after replacement of meter. The relevant provision of Electricity Supply Code circulated by the Licensee vide Sales Circular No. D-26/2016 provides under clause i.e. case of defective/sticky/dead stop/burnt meter, the consumer shall be billed provisionally on the basis of consumption recorded during corresponding period of previous year when the meter was functional and recording correctly. The other bases are to be applied in case the correct corresponding consumption is not available or there is increase in load etc. In the instant case, the corresponding consumption is available and also mentioned on the half margin itself. There is nothing on record to show that the load of the consumer increased.

54 -: 2 :- After taking into accounts all the facts of the case, the Forum decides that the account of the consumer for the period 06/2013 to 04/2014 may be overhauled as per corresponding consumption of previous year in lying with the provisions of the Electricity Supply Code. The case is closed. The parties to bear their own cost. As required under Haryana State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Guidelines for establishment of Forum for Redressal of Grievances of consumers, Electricity Ombudsman and Consumer Advocacy) Regulations-2016, the implementation of this decision may be intimated to this office within 30 days from the date of its receipt. If the petitioner is not satisfied with the decision of CGRF, he has the right to file an appeal before the Electricity Ombudsman, Haryana, HERC, Bays No.33-36, Sector-4, Panchkula within one month from the date of receipt of the order of the Forum as per Regulation 2.59 of Haryana State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Guidelines for establishment of Forum for Redressal of Grievances of consumers, Electricity Ombudsman and Consumer Advocacy) Regulations File be consigned to record. Given under our hands on this day of 27 th June, (K.D.Bansal) (Rajesh Sharma) (Manu Bishnoi) Member Technical-cum-Chairman Member/Accounts Independent Member

55 . FORUM FOR REDRESSAL OF CONSUMER GRIEVANCES DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM D-BLOCK, Ground Floor, Vidyut Sadan, Vidyut Nagar, Hisar Telephone No (website: ( ID: Case No. DH/CGRF-1771/2017 Date of Institution: Date of Hearing: & Date of Order: Before the Forum for Redressal of Consumer Grievances, DHBVN. Present:- Sh. K.D.Bansal, Member Technical-cum-Chairman Sh. Rajesh Sharma, Member/Accounts Sh. Manu Bishnoi, Independent Member In the matter of complaint Sh. Narendra Gupta (Mamta Engineering Corporation), Plot No. 173, Sector-58, Faridabad regarding billing problem... Complainant/Petitioner V/s 1. Xen/Op. Division, DHBVN, Ballabgarh. 2.SDO/Op. S/U S/Division, DHBVN, Ballabgarh. Appearance:- For Complainant: For the Respondent:.Respondents 1.Representative. 1.Nodal Officer, CGRF, DHBVN, Hisar 2. SDO/Op. S/U Sub-Divn., DHBVN, Ballabgarh.

56 ORDER Sh. Narnder Gupta of M/s Mamta Engineering Corporation, Plot No. 173, Sector-58, Faridabad has got an electricity connection bearing A/C No under SDO/Op. S/U Sub-Division, DHBVN, Ballabgarh, hence this Forum has jurisdiction to hear the complaint. The complainant has filed the present complaint stating therein that the respondent Nigam is charging penalty on account of meter slow in their account every now and then. No justification/details of such charging is given and they would deposit the penalty causing hardship and harassment at the hands of the Licensee. Recently the premises were checked by the M&P and declared meter slow however, no report given. Later on a notice was given vide letter dated 19/08/2016 for depositing an amount of Rs /- on account of meter slow by 20% which they deposited. After three months, during subsequent checking the meter was declared slow by 33.33%. How the meter declared slow again after three months is not understandable. The meter is installed outside the premises. They have no knowledge of the meter. The charging of Rs /- raised vide notice dated 23/02/2017 for the period 1/08/2016 to 28/12/2016. The consumer stated that they have already been penalized three times from 2010 onwards on account of slowness of meter and three times on account of other grounds i.e. short assessment, meter jump etc. The consumer requested the Forum to redress his grievance. The complaint was forwarded to the Nodal Officer for filing the written reply of the Nigam and both the parties were asked to appear before the Forum on at Faridabad for hearing of the case. The proceedings held at Faridabad on The representatives of consumer and respondent SDO were present. The SDO submitted reply through Nodal Officer/CGRF, vide his memo No dated , stating therein that the connection of M/s Narinder Gupta having A/C No got checked by M&P wing on dated and found meter slow by 20% and the cutoff date intimated by XEN/M&P vide memo No. 555 dated that Account of consumer be overhauled with slowness of 20% from (KWH 13951, KVAH 18650) to (KWH 16415, KVAH 21203), accordingly a sum of Rs.99259/- was charged vide SC&AR No. 121/R-104 in the month of 09/2016 (copy of detail attached). Again the connection checked by M&P wing on dated and meter found slow by 33.33% and cutoff date intimated by XEN/M&P vide memo No. 97 dated as Account of consumer be overhauled with slowness of 33.33% from (KWH 16903, KVAH 21710) to (KWH 18303, KVAH 23361) Accordingly a sum of Rs /- charged to the consumer vide SC&AR No. 72/R-107 with prior intimation to consumer through notice.

57 A copy of the reply was handed over to the representative of the consumer who was not satisfied and argued that the meter installed by the Nigam itself cannot be declared slow time and again and he cannot be made to pay the arbitrary charges on this account. After hearing both the parties, the Forum decides to adjourn the case to next hearing with the direction to respondent SDO to produce the following records before the next hearing; 1. Copies of both the M&P checking report dated 18/07/2016 & 28/12/ Load survey data of the relevant period of overhauling of consumer account covering both the recent checking. Further proceedings of the case held at Faridabad on Both the complainant and respondent SDO were present. SDO (OP) S/U S/D Ballabgarh placed on record copy of meter checking report dated and alongwith load survey data as per orders passed by this Forum on The complaiant was given an opportunity to file any other document/submissions relevant to case before the Forum. However, no additional document/submissions placed on record. After examination of the records placed in the case file and hearing both the parties, the Forum observed that the charging made by SDO on account of slowness of meter is correct and based on the checking report of M&P. The Forum therefore, decides to dispose off the complaint being devoid of merits. Case is closed. Both the parties to bear their own cost. If the petitioner is not satisfied with the decision of CGRF, he has the right to file an appeal before the Electricity Ombudsman, Haryana, HERC, Bays No.33-36, Sector-4, Panchkula within one month from the date of receipt of the order of the Forum as per Regulation 2.59 of Haryana State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Guidelines for establishment of Forum for Redressal of Grievances of consumers, Electricity Ombudsman and Consumer Advocacy) Regulations File be consigned to record. Given under our hands on this day of 11 th July, (K.D.Bansal) (R K Sharma) (Manu Bishnoi) Member Technical-cum-Chairman Member/Accounts Independent Member

58 FORUM FOR REDRESSAL OF CONSUMER GRIEVANCES DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM D-BLOCK, Ground Floor, Vidyut Sadan, Vidyut Nagar, Hisar Telephone No (website: ( ID: Case No. DH/CGRF-1775/2017 Date of Institution: Date of Hearing Date of Order: Before the Forum for Redressal of Consumer Grievances, DHBVN. Present:- K.D.Bansal, Member Technical-cum-Chairman Rajesh Sharma, Member/Accounts Manu Bishnoi, Independent Member In the matter of complaint of Sh. Om Parkash Kapoor, House No.999, Karkhana Mohalla, Jakhal Mandi Distt., Fatehabad regarding billing problem. V/s.. Complainant/Petitioner 1. XEN/Op. Division No.2, DHBVN, Tohana. 2.SDO/Op. Sub-Division, DHBVN,Jakhal..Respondents Appearance:- For Complainant: For the Respondent: 1.None. 1.Nodal Officer, CGRF, DHBVN, Hisar. 2.Representative of SDO/Op. Sub- Division, DHBVN, Jakhal.