Case No. DH/CGRF-997/2015 Date of Institution: 09.01.2015 Date of Hearing: 06.02.2015 Date of Order: 06.02.2015 Before the, DHBVN. Present:- Sh. Daljit Singh, Chairman Sh. R.V.Bari, Member Sh. Satish Malik, Member In the matter o f co mplaint o f S mt. S antosh W/o S h. B albir S ingh, H.No. 219, T.P.Scheme, Sector-5, Hisar regarding refund of development charges... Complainant/Petitioner V/s 1. Xen/Operation Division No.1, DHBVN, Hisar. 2AEE, City Sub-Division, Double Phatak, DHBVN, Hisar. Appearance:- For Complainant: For the Respondent: 1.None..Respondents 1.Nodal Officer/CGRF,DHBVN,Hisar 2.SDO/Counsel of Sub Divn., DHBVN, Hisar.
ORDER Smt. Santosh W/o Sh. Balbir Singh, H.No. 219, T.P.Scheme, Surajmal Enclave, Sector-5, Hisar has got an electricity connection bearing A/C No. BTM-4413 under AEE/Op. City Sub-Division, DHBVN, Hisar, hence this Forum has jurisdiction to hear the complaint. The complainant has filed the present complaint stating therein that the respondent has charged development charges at the time of release of electricity connection and demanded the refund of the same and to r elease p ermanent el ectricity c onnection in H ouse No. 219, T.P.Scheme, S urajmal E nclave, Sector-5, Hisar. The consumer stated that the area of Surajmal Enclave, Sector-5, Hisar is authorized colony vide Govt. of Haryana Endst.No. 8/76/91-6CI dated 06/11/2006 and bearing drawing No. DTP(H)3414 dated 20/07/2006. The c omplaint was f orwarded t o t he N odal O fficer for f iling t he N igam s v ersion and bot h t he par ties were asked to appear before the Forum on 06/02/2015 at Hisar for hearing of the case. To-day, t he pr oceedings h eld a t H isar on 0 6/02/2015. T he c onsumer i s not pr esent but r espondent SDO/Counsel of r espondent s ub-division is pr esent. T he r espondent SDO s ubmitted r eply t hrough N odal Officer/CGRF, DHB VN, v ide h is of fice m emo N o. 375/76 dated 05/02/2015, s tating therein t hat Surajmal Enclave, Sector-5, Hisar area is not authorized, it is not included in the list of authorized colonies circulated by M.C. Hisar. Therefore, the development charges are recoverable from the consumer. Moreover, the charges of street lighting are being paid by the Colonizer and not by the Municipal Committee. The respondent SDO also stated that she since long had availed/took an electric connection from the respondent after making necessary payment of development charges and now she is stopped at such a fag end to raise a question mark upon her own act which she did voluntarily. After going through the case file, the information/documents supplied by the appellant as well as by the respondent on t he dat e of hear ing and d iscussion h eld d uring t he c ourse of hear ing i n t he c ase, t he F orum decides t o di smiss t he pet ition of t he pet itioner c onsidering itself i ncompetent t o dec ide t he i ssue. T he consumer is at liberty to file the case in appropriate Forum/Court to get the matter decided as to whether the Surajmal Enclave, Sector-5, Hisar is authorized colony or not. File be consigned to record. Given under out hands on this day of 6 th February, 2015. (Daljit Singh) (R.V.Bari) (Satish Malik) Chairman Member Member
Case No. DH/CGRF-998/2015 Date of Institution: 09.01.2015 Date of Hearing: 06.02.2015 Date of Order: 06.02.2015 Before the, DHBVN. Present:- Sh. Daljit Singh, Chairman Sh. R.V.Bari, Member Sh. Satish Malik, Member In the matter of complaint of Smt. Pavita W/o Sh. Baljeet S ingh, H.No. 303, T.P.Scheme, Sector-5, Hisar regarding refund of development charges... Complainant/Petitioner V/s 1. Xen/Operation Division No.1, DHBVN, Hisar. 2AEE, City Sub-Division, Double Phatak, DHBVN, Hisar. Appearance:- For Complainant: For the Respondent: 1.None..Respondents 1.Nodal Officer/CGRF,DHBVN,Hisar 2.SDO/Counsel of Sub Divn., DHBVN, Hisar.
ORDER Smt. Pavita W/o Sh. Baljeet Singh, H.No. 303, T.P.Scheme, Surajmal Enclave, Sector-5, Hisar has got an electricity connection bearing A/C No. SM01-0007 under AEE/Op. City Sub-Division, DHBVN, Hisar, hence this Forum has jurisdiction to hear the complaint. The complainant has filed the present complaint stating therein that the respondent has charged development charges at the time of release of electricity connection and demanded the refund of the same and to r elease p ermanent el ectricity c onnection in H ouse No. 219, T.P.Scheme, S urajmal E nclave, Sector-5, Hisar.. The consumer stated that the area of Surajmal Enclave, Sector-5, Hisar is authorized colony vide Govt. of Haryana Endst.No. 8/76/91-6CI dat ed 06/11/2006 and bearing drawing No. DTP(H)3414 dated 20/07/2006. The c omplaint was f orwarded t o t he N odal O fficer for f iling t he N igam s v ersion and bot h t he par ties were asked to appear before the Forum on 06/02/2015 at Hisar for hearing of the case. To-day, the proceedings held at Hisar on 06/02/2015. The consumer is not present but SDO/Counsel of r espondent s ub-division i s pr esent. T he r espondent SDO s ubmitted r eply t hrough N odal O fficer/cgrf, DHBVN, v ide his of fice m emo No. 377/78 d ated 05/ 02/2015, s tating therein t hat Surajmal Enclave, Sector-5, Hisar ar ea i s not au thorized, it is no t i ncluded i n t he list of aut horized c olonies c irculated b y M.C. H isar. Therefore, t he dev elopment c harges ar e r ecoverable f rom t he c onsumer. Mor eover, t he c harges of s treet lighting are being paid by the Colonizer and not by the Municipal Committee. The respondent SDO also stated that s he s ince l ong ha d availed/took an el ectric c onnection f rom t he r espondent af ter making nec essary payment of development charges and now she is stopped at such a fag end to raise a question mark upon her own act which she did voluntarily. After going through the case file, the information/documents supplied by the appellant as well as by the respondent on t he dat e of hear ing and d iscussion h eld d uring t he c ourse of hear ing i n t he c ase, t he F orum decides t o di smiss t he pet ition of t he pet itioner c onsidering itself i ncompetent t o dec ide t he i ssue. T he consumer is at liberty to file the case in appropriate Forum/Court to get the matter decided as to whether the Surajmal Enclave, Sector-5, Hisar is authorized colony or not. File be consigned to record. Given under our hands on this day of 6 th February, 2015. (Daljit Singh) (R.V.Bari) (Satish Malik) Chairman Member Member
Case No. DH/CGRF-999/2015 Date of Institution: 13.01.2015 Date of Hearing: 10.02.2015 Date of Order: 10.02.2015 Before the, DHBVN. Present:- Sh. R.V.Bari, Member Sh. Satish Malik, Member In the matter of complaint of Smt. Bala Singh @ Rajbala W/o Sh. Subhash Chand, H.No. 181, Sector- 2, Palwal regarding billing problem... Complainant/Petitioner V/s 1. Xen/Op. Division, DHBVN, Palwal. 2.SDO/Op. S/Division, DHBVN, Palwal. Appearance:- For Complainant: 1.Present..Respondents For the Respondent: 1.Nodal Officer,CGRF, DHBVN, Hisar. 2.Representative of Sub-Divn., DHBVN, Palwal. ORDER
Smt. Bala Singh @ Rajbala W/o Sh. Subhash Chand, H.No. 181, Sector-2, Palwal has got an electricity connection bearing A/C No. 3393511111 under SDO/Op. Sub-Division, DHBVN, Palwal, hencthe SDOe this Forum has jurisdiction to hear the complaint. The complainant has filed the complaint, stating therein that; 1. On dated 18/03/2008 an inspection team authorized by DHBVN inspected the premises of the applicant and vide its test report No. 2170314 Book No. 7813 found the meter burnt. 2. After this inspection, DHBVN started issuing bill on av erage basis and it continued during so years together but vide bill No. 3560 dated 27/01/2014 found the meter to be working properly and charged Rs.9415/- as sundry charges. 3. The applicant requested to SDO concerned vide his letter dated 15/04/2014 for waiving off the sundry charges and for correction of the bill and showing his willingness to pay the corrected bill. 4. The a foresaid l etter w as marked to JE o f t he ar ea w ho af ter p hysical verification recommended for issuance of MCO. 5. The SDO Urban S/Divn. instead of getting the bill corrected used coercive methods to recover the di sproportionate am ount and v ide i ts order N o. 7/ 1002 dat ed 21 /04/2014 or dered for disconnection of the electric supply to the applicant. 6. Having no other alternative applicant was forced to deposit the disproportionate billed amount including Rs.9415/- as sundry charges vide CCR Book No. 90 page No.27 item No.144 dated 23/04/2014. 7. On 06/06/2014 applicant was informed by DHBVN to get the defective meter replaced and to deposit an am ount of Rs.1100/- for new meter. T he applicant deposited the said amount on 06/06/2014 vide memo No. 019000. 8. The DHBVN took more than a month to replaced the meter despite the deposition of required amount. 9. Despite the installation of new meter, DHBVN vide bill No. 339352907563 dated 24/10/2014 issued bill for 123 days on average basis. 10. Vide bill No. 339315053804 dat ed 28/12/2014, applicant has been shown to have consumed 2015 uni ts from 25 /05/2014 t o 28/ 11/2014 bel iving t he de fective m eter t o hav e worked properly before its replacement. The consumer requested to get the sundry charges of Rs.9415 refunded with interest and not to charge for 576 units rather 744 units of the defective meter and oblige. -: 2 :-
The complaint was forwarded to the Nodal Officer for filing the Nigam s version and bot h the parties were asked to appear before the Forum on 10/02/2015 at Palwal for hearing of the case. To-day, the proceedings held at Palwal on 10/02/2015. The consumer as well as representative of respondent SDO is present. The SDO submitted reply through Nodal Officer/CGRF, DHBVN, vide his office memo No. 187 dated 09/02/2015, stating therein that bill raised from 06/2012 to 10/2013 of the consumer on average basis @ 240 units due to D-Code, but reading recorded regularly by the meter reader. But average charged by the system is less than consumption recorded in meter/system, hence account is overhauled by the local audit party and charge the amount of Rs.9415/- vide SC&AR No. 55/R-92. After going through the case file, the information/documents supplied by the appellant as well as by the respondent on the date of hearing and discussion held during the course of hearing in the case, the Forum directed the SDO that his account may be overhauled after six billing cycles on the basis of reading recorded by new meter installed in 07/2014. The representative of respondent SDO stated that for other grievance of the consumer needful will be done in the next bill. The Forum disposed off the petition without any cost on either side and case is closed from the Forum. File be consigned to record. Given under our hands on this day of 10 th February, 2015. (R.V.Bari) Member (Satish Malik) Member
Case No. DH/CGRF-1000/2015 Date of Institution: 14.01.2015 Date of Hearing: 06.02.2015& 05.03.2015 Date of Order: 05.03.2015. Before the, DHBVN. Present:- Sh. Daljit Singh, Chairman Sh. R.V.Bari, Member Sh. Satish Malik, Member In the matter of complaint of Sh. Roshan Lal S/o Late Sh. Vijay Ram, V&P.O. Ladwa, Tehsil & Distt., Hisar regarding billing problem... Complainant/Petitioner V/s 1. Xen/Operation Division No.II, DHBVN, Hisar. 2 SDO/Op. Sub-Division, DHBVN, Satrod, Hisar. Appearance:- For Complainant: For the Respondent:.Respondents 1.Present. 1.Nodal Officer/CGRF,DHBVN,Hisar 2.SDO/Counsel of Sub Divn., DHBVN, Satrod, Hisar.
ORDER Sh. R oshan La l S /o L ate Sh. V ijay R am, V &P.O. L adwa, Tehsil & D istt., H isar has got an el ectricity connection be aring A /C N o. E -587 un der S DO/Op. S ub-division, D HBVN, S atrod, he nce t his F orum has jurisdiction to hear the complaint. The complainant has filed the present complaint stating therein that he has applied for PDCO on 28/02/2001. On dated 28/02/2006, the respondent has issued bill. His premises was checked on 26/02/2009 by the JE. The JE reported that there is no meter entered in CA-22 of A/C No. E-587. On dated 04/09/2010, an Open Darbar was held in Vidyut Nagar where the complainant was assured that bill will not be issued in future. After f our months, he v isited t he r espondent office and r espondent t old him t hat h is c onnection has be en disconnected. But the e lectric bill is s till being s ent to him. T he c omplainant h as r equested f or issue of No Dues certificate against A/C No. E-587 and stoppage of further issuance of bill. The c omplaint was f orwarded t o t he N odal O fficer for f iling t he N igam s v ersion and bot h t he par ties were asked to appear before the Forum on 06/02/2015 at Hisar for hearing of the case. During the proceedings held at H isar on 06 /02/2015, t he c onsumer as well a s representative/counsel of r espondent S DO was pr esent. T he r epresentative/counsel of r espondent S DO stated that his office could not prepare reply due to late receipt of complaint and requested for next date. After going through the case file, the information/documents supplied by the appellant as well as by the respondent on the date of hearing and discussion held during the course of hearing in the case, the Forum decides to adjourn the case for next date due to non-submission of reply by the respondent SDO. To-day, the proceedings held at Hisar on 05/03/2015. The consumer as well as respondent SDO/Counsel of respondent sub-division is present. The respondent SDO has submitted copy of sundry charges and allowance register vide which wrong amount has been withdrawn and the grievance of the consumer has been redressed. The respondent SDO submitted that there is no amount pending and he will issue the No Dues Certificate to the complainant. After going through the case file, the information/documents supplied by the appellant as well as by the respondent on the date of hearing and discussion held during the course of hearing in the case, the Forum decided that the grievances of the consumer has been redressed as per reply submitted by the respondent SDO. The Forum disposed off the petition without any cost on either side and case is closed from the Forum. File be consigned to record. Given under our hands on this day of 5 th March, 2015. (Daljit Singh) (R.V.Bari) (Satish Malik) Chairman Member Member
Case No. DH/CGRF-1001/2015 Date of Institution: 14.01.2015 Date of Hearing: 06.02.2015&05.03.2015 Date of Order: 05.03.2015 Before the, DHBVN. Present:- Sh. Daljit Singh, Chairman Sh. R.V.Bari, Member Sh. Satish Malik, Member In the matter of complaint of Smt. Sunehri Devi W/o Sh. Bharat Singh, V&P.O. Barwala, Ward No.2, Barwala, Distt., Hisar regarding tube well connection... Complainant/Petitioner V/s 1. Xen/Operation Division No.II, DHBVN, Hisar. 2 SDO/Op. Sub-Division, DHBVN, Barwala, Distt., Hisar. Appearance:- For Complainant: For the Respondent:.Respondents 1.None. 1.Nodal Officer/CGRF,DHBVN,Hisar 2.Representative of Sub Divn., DHBVN, Barwala.
ORDER Smt. Sunehri Devi W/o Sh. Bharat Singh, Ward No.2, Barwala, Distt., Hisar has applied for tube well connection under S DO/Op. S ub-division, D HBVN, Barwala, h ence this Forum has j urisdiction t o h ear t he complaint. The c omplainant h as f iled t he pr esent c omplaint s tating t herein t hat s he h as app lied f or t ube well connection in 2011. After that, the respondent had issued notice of dated 07/07/2013 for depositing Rs.67500/-. The c omplainant deposited R s.67500/- on 0 8/07/2013. She visited t he X EN office and t hen t he c ontractor erected his t ube well l ine in O ctober, 2014. But t he c ontractor has not got i nspected her line f rom C hief Electrical Inspector. In Open Darbar, her husband again met with XEN who assured that 63 KVA T/F would be soon installed after inspection of line by the Chief Electrical Inspector. The consumer requested for release her tube well connection immediately. The c omplaint was f orwarded t o t he N odal Officer for f iling t he N igam s v ersion and bot h t he par ties were asked to appear before the Forum on 06/02/2015 at Hisar for hearing of the case. During the proceedings held at Hisar on 06/02/2015, the consumer not present but respondent SDO was present. The SDO submitted reply of XEN/Op. Division No.II, DHBVN, Hisar through Nodal Officer/CGRF, DHBVN, vide his office memo No. 1510-12 dated 05/02/2015, stating therein that Smt. Sunehari Devi W/o S h. B harat S ingh had a pplied f or new t ube w ell c onnection v ide a pplication N o. 3 7849/AP d ated 07/09/2011 and de posited t he ACD an d pr ocess c harges am ounting t o Rs.800+200. T he SDO, Barwala framed an es timate of 3 N o. LT s pans and au gmentation of a lready existing 2 5 K VA T /F t o 63 KVA T /F f or release of ne w c onnection to the c omplainant a nd t he es timate was s anctioned b y his of fice vide m emo No. 100/BR/2013-2014. T he demand not ice was s ent t o t he c omplainant vide his office memo N o. 307 7 d ated 12/06/2013. T he c omplainant c omplied with the d emand notice and s ubmitted the t est r eport a long with t he required documents on dated 08/07/2013 and also deposited Rs.37500/- + Rs.30,000/- = Rs.67500/- as cost of spans and partial cost of T/F. The work for erection of HT/LT lines were allotted to M/s Aadhar Group & the said Firm has completed the line work except the Inspection of CEI, Hisar. The SDO/Op. Sub-Divn., Barwala has also requested to the CEI, Hisar for inspection vide his office memo No. 119/20 dat4ed 07/01/2015. The inspection of the line was carried by the CEI, Hisar on dated 14/01/2015 and the approval was given by them to energize t he l ine with s ome obs ervations. T he SCO w as i ssued by the r espondent S DO, B arwala v ide his office SCO No. 14/0361 dated 15/01/2015. After removing the observations of CEI, the tube well connection of the complainant was released on 17/01/2015.
-: 2 :- After going through the case file, the information/documents supplied by the appellant as well as by the respondent on the date of hearing and discussion held during the course of hearing in the case, the Forum decides to adjourn the case for next date due to non-presence of consumer. To-day, the proceedings held at Hisar on 05/03/2015. The consumer is not present but representative of respondent SDO is present. The representative of respondent SDO stated that the connection of the consumer has already been released and grievance of the consumer has been redressed. After going through the case file, the information/documents supplied by the appellant as well as by the respondent on the date of hearing and discussion held during the course of hearing in the case, the Forum decided/concluded that the grievance of the consumer has been redressed by the respondent SDO. The Forum disposed off the petition without any cost on either side and case is closed from the Forum. File be consigned to record. Given under our hands on this day of 5 th March, 2015. (Daljit Singh) (R.V.Bari) (Satish Malik) Chairman Member Member
Case No. DH/CGRF-1002/2015 Date of Institution: 14.01.2015 Date of Hearing: 06.02.2015 Date of Order: 06.02.2015 Before the, DHBVN. Present:- Sh. Daljit Singh, Chairman Sh. R.V.Bari, Member Sh. Satish Malik, Member In the matter of complaint of Smt. Shilpa Rani W/o Sh. Gulshan Kumar, New Rishi Nagar, Near Naveen Public School, Hisar regarding billing problem... Complainant/Petitioner V/s 1. Xen/Operation Division No.1, DHBVN, Hisar. 2AEE, City Sub-Division, Double Phatak, DHBVN, Hisar. Appearance:- For Complainant: For the Respondent:.Respondents 1.Representative. 1.Nodal Officer/CGRF,DHBVN,Hisar 2.SDO/Counsel of Sub Divn., DHBVN, Hisar.
ORDER Smt. S hilpa R ani W/o S h. G ulshan K umar, N ew R ishi Nagar, N ear N aveen P ublic School, Hisar has got an electricity connection bearing A/C No. S101/2289 under AEE/Op. City Sub-Division, DHBVN, Hisar, hence this Forum has jurisdiction to hear the complaint. The complainant has filed the present complaint stating therein that she had deposited the energy bill upto Oct., 2014. Her electricity meter has been replaced by the respondent without any co mplaint and af ter 20 day s, t he r espondent has issued bi ll of 10175 uni ts amounting t o Rs.77045/-. H er pr emises is 43 sq. y ards and her sa nctioned l oad i s 1.60 KW. The co mplainant requested for correction of her bill. The complaint was forwarded to the Nodal Officer for filing the Nigam s version and bot h the parties were asked to appear before the Forum on 06/02/2015 at Hisar for hearing of the case. To-day, t he pr oceedings held at H isar on 0 6/02/2015. T he r epresentative of consumer as well as SDO/Counsel of respondent Sub-division is present. T he respondent SDO submitted reply through Nodal Officer/CGRF, DHBVN, vide his office memo No. 379/80 dated 05 /02/2015, s tating t herein t hat t he e lectric meter o f t he p etitioner st ands relocated from inside to outside as per policy of the Nigam on dated 22/11/2014 having a consumption reading of 16316 units and had installed a new meter with IR of 2 and the concerned JE had submitted i ts respective r eport o f M CO with t he o ffice o f r espondent and t he o ffice of respondent after receipt of MCO had tallied the reading with the consumer ledger and after checking the same, an astonishing fact came into the knowledge of the respondent on t hat relevant day, in the consumer ledger, the reading of the electric connection in question was found recorded only 6271, despite the fact that at the spot, the electric meter of the petitioner records consumption reading 16316, which amply proves the version qua the accumulation of reading by the petitioner in collusion with the concerned Meter Reader. So, on account of accumulation of r eading, t he o ffice of t he respondent h ad i ssued t he bill am ounting to Rs.77046/- which i ncludes difference r eading of 1 0045 a nd 1 30 r eading r ecorded by n ew meter, but the petitioner had not made the payment towards the same and t he respondent looking into the same had disconnected the electricity supply of the premises of the petitioner and the electric connection of t he petitioner can be restored only after making payment of entire outstanding amount.
-: 2 :- After going through the case file, the information/documents supplied by the appellant as well as by the respondent on the date of hearing and discussion held during the course of hearing in the case, the Forum is of the opinion that taking into consideration, the reading pattern of the old meter together with the sanctioned load which is 1.6 KW and also one subsequent reading (around 130 units) of new meter. There is a case of sudden jump of the meter and not accumulation of reading. The Forum, therefore, directed. the respondent SDO that he will overhaul the account of the consumer on the basis of succeeding three cycle billing of new meter and accept the current bill from the consumer till then. After three cycles billing, the impugned amount i.e. Rs.77046/- be adjusted and account be overhauled on the basis of succeeding three cycle billing. The Forum disposed off the petition without any cost on either side and case is closed from the Forum. File be consigned to record. Given under our hands on this day of 6 th February, 2015. (Daljit Singh) (R.V.Bari) (Satish Malik) Chairman Member Member
Case No. DH/CGRF-1003/2015 Date of Institution: 14.01.2015 Date of Hearing: 06.02.2015 Date of Order: 06.02.2015 Before the, DHBVN. Present:- Sh. Daljit Singh, Chairman Sh. R.V.Bari, Member Sh. Satish Malik, Member In the matter of complaint of Sh. Satish Kumar S/o Sh. Raj Kumar, V&P.O. Buda Khera, Tehsil, Uklana, Distt., Hisar regarding billing problem... Complainant/Petitioner V/s 1. Xen/Operation Division, DHBVN, Tohana. 2 SDO/Op. Sub-Division, DHBVN, Uklana, Distt., Hisar. Appearance:- For Complainant: For the Respondent:.Respondents 1.Present. 1.Nodal Officer/CGRF,DHBVN,Hisar 2.SDO of Sub Divn., DHBVN, Uklana.
ORDER Sh. S atish K umar S /o Sh. R aj K umar, V &P.O. Buda K hera, T ehsil, U kalan, D istt., H isar has got an electricity c onnection bearing A/C No. BD1D-0841 u nder SDO/Op. S ub-division, DHB VN, Uklana, he nce t his Forum has jurisdiction to hear the complaint. The complainant has filed the present complaint stating therein that the respondent had issued bill of Rs.30,000/- and his meter removed. The consumer requested for installation of meter and deposited the amount in installments of Rs.2000/- per installment. The c omplaint was f orwarded t o t he N odal O fficer for f iling t he N igam s v ersion and bot h t he par ties were asked to appear before the Forum on 06/02/2015 at Hisar for hearing of the case. To-day, t he pr oceedings h eld at H isar on 06 /02/2015. T he c onsumer as well a s r espondent SDO is present. T he r espondent SDO s ubmitted r eply through N odal O fficer/cgrf, DHBVN, vide his office memo No. 275 dated 06/02/2015, stating therein that connection of the complainant has been disconnected on dated 05/12/2013 vide PDCO No. 20/1223 on defaulting amount Rs.31906/- which is outstanding against the consumer. The c onnection c annot b e r eleased of d efaulter c onsumer. T he c onsumer w ants t o m ake t he payment i n installments of R s.2000/- only p er bi ll, but as per N igam i nstruction, R CO of def aulter c onsumer cannot be affected without payment of full defaulting amount. After going through the case file, the information/documents supplied by the appellant as well as by the respondent on the date of hearing and discussion held during the course of hearing in the case, the Forum noted that the consumer is physically handicapped and very poor and hardly able to have his both ends meet. The Forum, therefore, directed the respondent SDO to release connection of the consumer by getting deposited 1/6 th of the defaulting amount. The balance defaulting amount be recovered in 5 equal installments along with current bill payment. The consumer is also directed that he will deposit 1/6 th of defaulting amount with the respondent Nigam and Nigam will release his connection after depositing 1/6 th amount of defaulting amount. The Forum disposed off the petition without any cost on either side and case is closed from the Forum. File be consigned to record. Given under our hands on this day of 6 th February, 2015. (Daljit Singh) (R.V.Bari) (Satish Malik) Chairman Member Member
Case No. DH/CGRF-1004/2015 Date of Institution: 16.01.2015 Date of Hearing: 10.02.2015 Date of Order: 10.02.2015 Before the, DHBVN. Present:- Sh. R.V.Bari, Member Sh. Satish Malik, Member In the matter of complaint of Sh. Manish Gulati S/o Sh. T.C. Gulati, H.No. 462, Sector-14, Faridabad (M/s Sugu Fabrics & Linings, 49 KM Mile Stone, Village Prithla, Palwal) regarding metering problem... Complainant/Petitioner V/s 1. Xen/Op. Division, DHBVN, Palwal. 2.SDO, S/U S/Division, DHBVN, Palwal. Appearance:- For Complainant: 1.Present..Respondents For the Respondent: 1.Nodal Officer,CGRF, DHBVN, Hisar. 2.SDO of S/U Sub-Divn., DHBVN, Palwal.
ORDER Sh. Manish Gulati S/o Sh. T.C. Gulati, H.No. 462, Sector-14, Faridabad (M/s Sugu Fabrics & Linings, 49 K M Mile Stone, Fillage Prithla, Palwal has got an electricity connection bearing A/C No. F42-GLHT-18 under SDO, S/U Sub-Division, DHBVN, Palwal, hence this Forum has jurisdiction to hear the complaint. The complainant has filed the complaint, stating therein that there is problem in the display of meter reading due to which wrong readings are coming and he is paying extra money. The consumer has already filed the complaint on 25/07/2014 to the SDO, Palwal and the same has been registered in the file on S r. No. 422 dat ed 25/07/2014 but no action took place. The consumer again filed the complaint t o S DO, Mr. Singla on 21/ 11/2014. The S DO passe d m eter ch ange or der on the s ame dqate and fees of Rs.7100/- was deposited but till date nothing has been done by the respondent. The co nsumer requested t o ask the aut hority co ncerned t o ch ange t he m eter and till dat e pr ovide relief in the bill amount. The complaint was forwarded to the Nodal Officer for filing the Nigam s version and bot h the parties were asked to appear before the Forum on 10/02/2015 at Palwal for hearing of the case. To-day, the proceedings held at Palwal on 10/02/2015. The consumer as well as respondent SDO is present. The SDO submitted reply through Nodal Officer/CGRF, DHBVN, vide his office memo No. 361 dated 10/02/2015, stating therein that defective meter of the consumer has been replaced on dated 09/02/2015 and there is no grievance pending. The consumer submitted in writing that he is satisfied. After going through the case file, the information/documents supplied by the appellant as well as by the respondent on the date of hearing and discussion held during the course of hearing in the case, the Forum decided that since the meter has been replaced by the respondent SDO and consumer has given in writing that he is satisfied, the petition is disposed off without any cost on either side and case is closed from the Forum. File be consigned to record. Given under our hands on this day of 10 th February, 2015. (R.V.Bari) Member (Satish Malik) Member
Case No. DH/CGRF-1005/2014 Date of Institution: 21.01.2015 Date of Hearing: 18.02.2015 Date of Order: 18.02.2015 Before the, DHBVN. Present:- Sh. R.V.Bari, Member Sh. Satish Malik, Member In t he m atter o f co mplaint o f S h. G ulshan K umar, H.No.412, S BI S treet, A ggarsain C olony, S irsa regarding billing problem... Complainant/Petitioner V/s 1. Xen/Op. City Division, DHBVN, Sirsa. 2.SDO, City Sub-Division, DHBVN, Sirsa. Appearance:- For Complainant: For the Respondent: 1.Present..Respondents 1. Nodal Officer/ CGRF,DHBVN,Hisar. 2..Representative of City Sub Divn., DHBVN,Sirsa
ORDER Sh. Gulshan Kumar, H.No. 412, SBI Street, Aggarsain Colony, Sirsa has got an electricity connection bearing A/C No. TT27-1935 under SDO, City Sub-Division, DHBVN, Sirsa, hence this Forum has jurisdiction to hear the complaint. The complainant has filed the present complaint stating therein that the respondent had issued wrong bill of dated 11/09/2012 to 10/10/2012. His energy meter recorded very high consumption due to jump during the said period. He has no high energy consuming electrical equipment in his shop. He stated that does the work of tailor in his shop and requested for correction of his bill. The c omplaint was f orwarded t o t he N odal O fficer for f iling t he N igam s v ersion and bot h t he par ties were asked to appear before the Forum on 18/02/2015 at Sirsa for hearing of the case. To-day, the proceedings held at Sirsa on 18.02.2015. The consumer as well as representative of the respondent SDO is pr esent. T he SDO s ubmitted r eply through N odal O fficer/cgrf, DHBVN, vide his office memo N o. 436 dat ed 10 /02/2015, s tating t herein t hat a c heck meter i nstalled v ide SJO N o. 681 3 d ated 24/01/2013 and removed on 01/02/2013. The check meter recorded 48 units. Existing meter did not show the reading, being meter was dead stop. The meter replaced vide MCO No. 18/5512 dated 06/03/2013, FR-17958, IR-5. The average charged in the month of 03/2013 was adjusted of Rs.5217 against SC&AR No. 4/111. After going through the case file, the information/documents supplied by the appellant as well as by the respondent on the date of hearing and discussion held during the course of hearing in the case, the Forum directed the respondent SDO to overhaul the account of the consumer on the basis of consumption pattern of new meter installed in the month of March, 2013. The account of the consumer be overhauled on the basis of new meter reading recorded for one year for the period 04/2013 to March, 2014. The Forum disposed off the petition without any cost on either side and case is closed from the Forum. File be consigned to record. Given under our hands on this day of 18 th February, 2015. (R.V.Bari) Member (Satish Malik) Member
Case No. DH/CGRF-1006/2015 Date of Institution: 21.01.2015 Date of Hearing: 18.02.2015&20.03.2015 Date of Order: 20.03.2015 Before the, DHBVN. Present:- Sh. Daljit Singh, Chairman Sh. R.V.Bari, Member Sh. Satish Malik, Member In the matter of complaint of Sh. Balbir Singh S/o Sh. Harkaran Lal, H.No.14/14, PNB Bank Street, Ram Colony, Barnala Road, Sirsa regarding billing problem... Complainant/Petitioner V/s 1. Xen/Op. City Division, DHBVN, Sirsa. 2.SDO, City Sub-Division, DHBVN, Sirsa. Appearance:- For Complainant: For the Respondent:.Respondents 1.Present. 1. Nodal Officer/ CGRF,DHBVN,Hisar. 2..SDO of City Sub Divn.,DHBVN,Sirsa
ORDER Sh. B albir S ingh S /o Sh. Harkaran Lal, H.No.14/14, P NB B ank S treet, R am Colony, Barnala R oad, Sirsa has got an electricity connection bearing A/C No. T12/ST-38-4380 under SDO, City Sub-Division, DHBVN, Sirsa, hence this Forum has jurisdiction to hear the complaint. The complainant has filed the present complaint stating therein that; 1. He r eceived e lectricity b ill of R s.9583/- due dat e 2 9/08/2013 which was be yond h is ex pectation & consumption. 2. Previous bills of all the times were between Rs.1000/-, Rs.1200/- & Rs.1500/-. After installation of new meter, the bills are in between Rs.1200/-, Rs.1500/- & Rs.1800/-. 3. Only bill of August jumped to Rs.9583/- and he made complaint to replace the defective meter and take the average of previous bill by installing the check meter. But without installing check meter, new meter installed.-- 4. When he made the representation of adjustment of excess bill, he was told that the same will be done after one year. F inally af ter one year, when h e ap proached Sirsa of fice, he w as t old t hat h is bi ll i s correct and no adjustment is required because no check meter was installed. The consumer requested the Forum to redress his grievances on the basis of his representation along with request for next date. Request granted. The c omplaint was f orwarded t o t he N odal O fficer for f iling t he N igam s v ersion and bot h t he par ties were asked to appear before the Forum on 18/02/2015 at Sirsa for hearing of the case. During the proceedings held at Sirsa on 18.02.2015, the consumer was not present but representative of the respondent SDO was present. The SDO submitted reply through Nodal Officer/CGRF, DHBVN, vide his office memo No. 435 dated 10/02/2015, stating therein that the complaint was checked by the area In-charge and found meter display defective. The meter was replaced vide MCO No. 18227 dated 17/09/2013, FR-NV, IR-2 and bill raised to consumer on actual consumption, no average charged. After going through the case file, the information/documents supplied by the appellant as well as by the respondent on the date of hearing and discussion held during the course of hearing in the case, the Forum decides to adjourn the case for next date on the request of the consumer. To-day, t he pr oceedings hel d at Sirsa on 20/ 03/2015. The c onsumer as well a s r espondent S DO i s present. T he c onsumer r equested t hat hi s ac count may be o verhauled o n t he bas is of c onsumption of electricity as recorded by new meter. The SDO replied that if adjustment is made on t he basis of reading of new meter, the average consumption per month will come to additional 402 units and he may have to pay more than the amount charged.
-: 2 :- After going through the case file, the information/documents supplied by the appellant as well as by the respondent on the date of hearing and discussion held during the course of hearing in the case, the Forum concludes that keeping in view the pattern of consumption prior to replacement of meter and after that, the amount charged is reasonable. The Forum disposed off the petition without any cost on either side and case is closed from the Forum. File be consigned to record. Given under our hands on this day of 20 th March, 2015. (Daljit Singh) (R.V.Bari) (Satish Malik) Chairman Member Member
Case No. DH/CGRF-1007/2015 Date of Institution: 22.01.2015 Date of Hearing: 23.01.2015&20.02.2015 Date of Order: 20.02.2015. Before the, DHBVN. Present:- Sh. Daljit Singh, Chairman Sh. Satish Malik, Member In the matter of complaint of Smt. Rajni Bagla W/o Sh. Ajay Bagla, C/o M/s Haryana Wire Drawing, Rohtak Road, Charkhi Dadri, Distt., Bhiwani regarding billing problem... Complainant/Petitioner V/s 1. Xen/Op. Division, DHBVN, Charkhi Dadri. 2.SDO/Op. City S/Division, DHBVN, Charkhi Dadri. Appearance:- For Complainant: For the Respondent:.Respondents 1.Representative. 1. Nodal Officer /CGRF,DHBVN,Hisar 2.SDO/Op. C ity S ub-divn., DHB VN, Ch arkhi Dadri.
ORDER Smt. R ajni B agla W/o S h. A jay Bagla C /o M/s H aryana Wire D rawing, R ohtak R oad, C harkhi D adri, Distt., B hiwani has go t a n el ectricity c onnection A /C N o. R W41-0030 under S DO/Op. C ity Sub-Division, DHBVN, Charkhi Dadri, hence this Forum has jurisdiction to hear the complaint. The c omplainant has f iled t he c omplaint, s tating t herein t hat s he had l odged a c omplaint t o t he respondent in Oct./Nov., 2013 that her energy meter was not showing the reading. After that respondent had got deposited Rs.3300/- as meter cost and CT purchased from the market by her. Then the respondent stated that CT may be got checked from Hisar. She got checked the CT from Hisar Lab and again deposited in the office of respondent SDO. The respondent installed the meter in July, 2014 after so many visits. After installing new meter, the respondent issued bill on average basis and not the correct bill. The consumer requested the Forum t o ov erhaul her ac count f rom S ept., 2 013 t o Oct., 2014 an d d irect t he department t o pay i nterest on security also. The c omplaint was f orwarded t o t he N odal O fficer for f iling t he N igam s v ersion and bot h t he par ties were asked to appear before the Forum on 23/01/2015 at Bhiwani for hearing of the case. During the proceedings held at Bhiwani on 23/01/2015, the consumer representative as well as respondent SDO was present. The respondent SDO submitted reply through Nodal Officer/CGRF, DHBVN, vide his office memo No. 1925 dated 23/01/2015, stating therein that the account of the consumer will be overhauled after getting the approval from XEN/Op. Divn., DHBVN, Charkhi Dadri and requested the Forum to list the case for next date. It was also added that the bill of the consumer had already been corrected for the period from Sep., 2013 to Oct., 2014 and Rs.72470/- refunded to the consumer vide SC&AR No. 287/125 and the same was refunded in th month of Nov. & Dec., 2014 (Nov. Rs.67188/- + 5282/- = Rs.72470/-). However, the consumer was not fully satisfied with the reply of respondent SDO and stated that initial reading in the month of Nov., 2014 was taken as 2 units whereas it should have been taken as 444 units. The respondent SDO agreed to this and stated that he will rectify the bill and issue correct bill to the consumer. After going through the case file, the information/documents supplied by the appellant as well as by the respondent on the date of hearing and discussion held during the course of hearing in the case, the Forum directed the respondent SDO that he will issue correct bill to the consumer and submit compliance report on or before the next date of hearing. To-day, the proceedings held at Bhiwani on 20/02/2015. The consumer representative as well as respondent SDO is present. The SDO submitted reply through Nodal Officer/CGRF, DHBVN, vide his office memo No. 2370 dated 19/02/2015, stating therein that the account of the consumer again overhauled in continuation of his office SC&AR No. 287/125 and Rs.45897/- refunded to the consumer vide SC&AR No. 31/130 dated 12/02/2015. The contention of the consumer that his account may be overhauled on the basis of consumption of 4-6 months and the average consumption of 6 months may be taken while overhauling the account of the consumer. Previously, the account of the consumer was overhauled on the basis of consumption of 3 months for which the consumer did not agree.
-: 2 :- After going through the case file, the information/documents supplied by the appellant as well as by the respondent on the date of hearing and discussion held during the course of hearing in the case, the Forum admitted the contention of the consumer and the account of the consumer may be overhauled by taking the average of the 6 months basis and redressed the grievance of the consumer. The Forum disposed off the petition without any cost on either side and case is closed from the Forum. File be consigned to record. Given under our hands on this day of 20 th February, 2015. (Daljit Singh) Chairman (Satish Malik) Member
Case No. DH/CGRF-1008/2014 Date of Institution: 22.01.2015 Date of Hearing: 13.02.2015 Date of Order: 13.02.2015 Before the, DHBVN. Present:- Sh. R.V.Bari, Member Sh. Satish Malik, Member In t he m atter o f co mplaint o f Sh. A rvind G upta, H.No. A -1773, Fi rst Fl oor, B ack side Green F ield Colony, Faridabad regarding billing problem... Complainant/Petitioner V/s 1. Xen/Operation Division, DHBVN, Old Faridabad. 2.SDO/Op. Sub-Division, Mathura Road, DHBVN, Faridabad. Appearance:-.Respondents For Complainant: 1.Present.. For the Respondent: 1.Nodal Officer/CGRF,DHBVN,Hisar 2. CA of sub-division, M/Road, Faridabad.
ORDER Sh. Arvind Gupta, H.No. A-1773, First Floor, Back side Green Field Colony, Faridabad has got an electricity connection A/C No. GF12-2458 under SDO/Op. Sub-Division, Mathura Road, DHBVN, Faridabad, hence this Forum has jurisdiction to hear the complaint. The complainant has filed the present complaint stating therein that he received a bill of Rs.21023/- for a consumption of 1361 units (2884-4245) in September, 2014. When he contacted SDO office at Palla, DHBVN, he was told that sundry charges of Rs.12669/- have been charged in this bill the reason being that SDO ordered a surprise checking for several meters with in colony and his meter was one them. At the time of surprise checking his meter was found working properly and it showed a reading of 4596 units. For a difference of 351 units (4596-4245 = 351 units), he was charged Rs.4315 (12669-8354). He was to pay Rs.12669/- which he failed to pay and waited for the next bill. Now in Nov., 2014 he received a bill of 1260 units (5505-4245) for Rs. 6514/- & arrear of Rs.12669/- total Rs.19809/-. After receipt of bill, he found that he was being charged twice for the reading of 351 units (4596-4245). The consumer again contacted the Palla office and they realized the mistake but Mr. Surinder dealing clerk told him that they can give him a rebate of Rs.1040/- only instead of Rs.4315/- which he was charged in September, 2014, so total difference 4315-1040= Rs.3275/-. The consumer requested to resolve his case at the earliest and be given a relief as being a senior citizen. The consumer also stated that no action be taken against him for the non-payment of bill till the matter is resolved. The complaint was forwarded to the Nodal Officer for filing the Nigam s version and both the parties were asked to appear before the Forum on 13/02/2015 at Faridabad for hearing of the case. To-day, the proceedings held at Faridabad on 13/02/2015. The consumer as well as CA of the subdivision is present. The respondent SDO submitted reply through his Nodal Officer/CGRF, DHBVN, vide his office memo No. 3355 dated 09/02/2015, stating therein that bill of the consumer has been corrected and adjusted Rs.4315/- in the consumer account vide SC&AR No. 42/R-48. The consumer further requested that his amount of surcharge of Rs.1935/- may be refunded to him. After going through the case file, the information/documents supplied by the appellant as well as by the respondent on the date of hearing, this Forum directed the respondent SDO that the amount of surcharge be refunded to him. The Forum disposed off the petition without any cost on either side and case is closed. File be consigned to record. Given under our hands on this day of 13 th February, 2015. (R.V.Bari) Member (Satish Malik) Member
Case No. DH/CGRF-1009/2015 Date of Institution: 22.01.2015 Date of Hearing: 06.02.2015 Date of Order: 06.02.2015 Before the, DHBVN. Present:- Sh. Daljit Singh, Chairman Sh. R.V.Bari, Member Sh. Satish Malik, Member In the matter of complaint of Sh. Vikram Singh, H.No. 52/14, Bank Colony, Tohana, Distt., Fatehabad regarding billing problem... Complainant/Petitioner V/s 1. Xen/Operation Division, DHBVN, Tohana. 2 SDO/Op. Sub-Division, DHBVN, Tohana. Appearance:- For Complainant: For the Respondent:.Respondents 1.Present. 1.Nodal Officer/CGRF,DHBVN,Hisar 2.Representative of Sub Divn., DHBVN, Tohana.
ORDER Sh. Vikram Singh, H.No. 52/14, Bank Colony, Tohana, Distt., Fatehabad has got an electricity connection bearing A/C No. J221-3095 under SDO/Op. Sub-Division, DHBVN, Tohana, hence this Forum has jurisdiction to hear the complaint. The c omplainant ha s f iled t he pr esent c omplaint s tating therein t hat t he r espondent h as r emoved hi s meter due to non-depositing of energy bill. The consumer stated that due to some circumstances, he could not deposit the energy bill in time and the respondent disconnected his premises in March, 2013. The consumer met with XEN, Tohana on 25/03/2013, SDO, City Tohana on 12/11/2014 and Chief Engineer, Vidyut Nagar, Hisar and lodged the complaint, but no action has been taken uptill now. The consumer requested for correction of his bill and reconnect his connection. The complaint was forwarded to the Nodal Officer for filing the Nigam s version and both the parties were asked to appear before the Forum on 06/02/2015 at Hisar for hearing of the case. To-day, t he pr oceedings he ld at H isar on 06/02/2015. The c onsumer as w ell a s r epresentative of respondent SDO is present. T he respondent SDO submitted reply through Nodal Officer/CGRF, DHBVN, vide his office memo No. 101 dated 05/02/2015, stating therein that the supply was disconnected due to non-payment of energy bill during the month of 03/2013. But meter could not be removed due to premises locked. Moreover, connection was released during 2001 and the consumer has paid only Rs.5000/- during these period. It is wrong that meter was removed on 25/03/2013 as the reading w as taken by H ESL s taff upto S eptember, 2014, a s p er r ecord of m eter r eading maintained by H ESL. Moreover, bill of consumer has been set right and delivered at the time of first appellant authority-cum-se/op. Circle, Hisar on dated 15/01/2015 under acknowledgement and MMC along with surcharge have been levied for the period 03/2013 to 09/2014, for making the payment. Where about of meter is well known by the applicant as the area in-charge Sh. Hanuman Singh, JE-F has reported that he has not removed the meter of the consumer. The respondent requested that the Forum may direct the petitioner to make the payment for restoration of power supply after fulfilling the requisite formalities. After going through the case file, the information/documents supplied by the appellant as well as by the respondent on the date of hearing and discussion held during the course of hearing in the case, the Forum directed the respondent SDO that he should accept the disconnection date as March, 2013 and bill be made upto March, 2013 only and surcharge be charged upto March, 2013 and correct bill be issued to the consumer, so that he may deposit the same immediately. The connection may be restored after getting deposited the amount so arrived at. The Forum disposed off the petition without any cost on either side and case is closed from the Forum. File be consigned to record. Given under our hands on this day of 6 th February, 2015. (Daljit Singh) (R.V.Bari) (Satish Malik) Chairman Member Member
Case No. DH/CGRF-1010/2015 Date of Institution: 22.01.2015 Date of Hearing: 16.02.2015& 17.03.2015 Date of Order: 17.03.2015 Before the, DHBVN. Present:- Sh. R.V. Bari, Member Sh. Satish Malik, Member In t he m atter o f co mplaint o f S h. O m P arkash S aini S /o S h. N et R am S aini, R am Koriawas Road, N arnaul, D istt., M ohindergarh r egarding new d omestic electricity connection... Complainant/Petitioner V/s 1. Xen/Operation Division, DHBVN, Narnaul. 2.SDO/Op. City Sub-Division, DHBVN, Narnaul. Appearance:- For Complainant: For the Respondent:.Respondents 1. Present. 1. Nodal Officer /CGRF,DHBVN,Hisar 2.SDO of City S/Divn., DHBVN, Narnaul.
ORDER Sh. Om Parkash Saini S/o Sh. Net Ram Saini, Ram Koriawas Road, Narnaul, Distt., Mohindergarh has applied for new domestic electricity connection application No.310210403107 dated 09/ 01/2015 unde r S DO/Op. C ity S ub-division, D HBVN,Narnaul, hence t his Forum has jurisdiction to hear the complaint. The complainant has filed the present complaint stating therein that he has applied for new domestic electricity co nnection by deposi ting R s.1570/- with t he r espondent t hree m onths ago, but the respondent has taken no action uptill now. The consumer requested for release his new domestic electricity connection. The complaint was forwarded to the Nodal Officer for filing the Nigam s version and bot h the parties were ask ed t o appear before t he For um on 16/ 02/2015 at Narnaul f or hear ing of t he case. During the proceedings held at Narnaul on 16/02/2015, the consumer as well as respondent SDO was present. The SDO could not submit reply and requested for next date. Request granted. After going through the case file, the information/documents supplied by the appellant as well as by the respondent on the date of hearing and discussion held during the course of hearing in the case, the Forum decides to adjourn the case for next date on the request of respondent SDO. To-day, the proceedings held at Narnaul on 17/03/2015. The consumer as well as respondent SDO is present. The SDO submitted reply through Nodal Officer/CGRF, DHBVN, vide his office memo No.304 dated 16/03/2015, stating therein that the connection of the consumer has been released by his office. The consumer also submitted his written consent that his grievance has been redressed by the SDO and requested for closure of the case. After going through the case file, the information/documents supplied by the appellant as well as by the respondent on the date of hearing and discussion held during the course of hearing in the case, the Forum concludes/decides that grievance of the consumer has been redressed as per reply submitted by the respondent SDO as well as written consent by the consumer. The Forum disposed off the petition without any cost on either side and case is closed from the Forum. File be consigned to record. Given under our hands on this day of 17 th March, 2015. (R.V.Bari) Member (Satish Malik) Member