forum for redressal of consumer grievances · 2017. 11. 1. · anil kumar s/o sh. ram mehar, vide...

FORUM FOR REDRESSAL OF CONSUMER GRIEVANCES DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM D-BLOCK, Ground Floor, Vidyut Sadan, Vidyut Nagar, Hisar-125 005 Telephone No. 01662-223081 (website: www.dhbvn.com) (e-mail ID: [email protected]) ___________________________________________________________ Case No. DH/CGRF-1703/2017 Date of Institution: 05.04.2017 Date of Hearing: 07.04.2017,01.05.2017 & 07.06.2017 & 11.07.2017 Date of Order: 12.07.2017 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. Anil Kumar S/o Sh. Ram Mehar, ELG-1,

Pushpa Complex, Delhi road, Hisar regarding release of wrong connection .

..…Complainant/Petitioner

V/s 1. XEN/Op. Division No.2, DHBVN,Hisar. 2.SDO/Op. Sub-Division, DHBVN, Satrod, Hisar. …………….Respondents

Appearance:-

For Complainant: 1.Sh. Anil Kumar. None from Smt.Raj Bala

For the Respondent: 1.Nodal Officer, CGRF, DHBVN, Hisar. 2.Representative of SDO/Op. Sub- Division, DHBVN, Satrod, Hisar.

http://www.dhbvn.com/�

mailto:[email protected]�

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. 3091066180 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

07.04.2017 at Hisar for hearing of the case.

During the proceedings held at Hisar on 07.04.2017, 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. 01.05.2017.

During the proceedings held at Hisar on 01.05.2017, the consumer and

representative of respondent SDO were present. The SDO submitted reply through

Nodal Officer/CGRF vide his memo No. 3206 dated 01.05.2017, 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 MeritsThat 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

:-

the name of Sh. Anil Kumar S/o Sh. Ram Mehar, vide A/C No. 3091066180 but Sh.

Anil Kumar moved a request before the Nigam that the electricity connection vide A/C

No. 3091066180 may be permanently disconnected and accordingly after due

verification of the record, the PDCO order No. 6338014443 dated 16.03.2017 was

issued and the same was affected on 20.03.2017.

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.

2525617649 was released and service connection order was issued on 29.03.2017

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 05.05.2017 requesting therein that:-

1. Sh. Anil filed a false application before this Forum which was fixed for

01.05.2017.

2. 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.

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 06.06.2017 for

hearing of the case. The SDO Op. Sub-Division, Satrod is directed to remain present

in person during hearing on 06.06.2017. The case was listed for hearing on next date.

The proceedings held at Hisar on 07.06.2017. 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. 3353 dated 22.05.2017, 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. 3091066180 and Sh. Anil Kumar moved before

the Nigam that electricity connection bearing A/C No. 3091066180 may be

permanently disconnected after due verification of the record and PDCO

bearing no.6338014443 dated 16.03.2017 was issued and same was affrected

on 20.03.2017.

3. 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

29.03.2017 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

13.06.2017.

5. The cases between applicant and Sh. Anil Kumar is running in different courts

as mentioned in para No. 4.

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 29.03.2017, 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 29.03.2017and 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 29.03.2017 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.

The case is adjourned to the next date i.e.11.07.2017 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 11.07.17. 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. 29.003.2017 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 18.04.16 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 18.03.15. 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

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-2016.

File be consigned to record.

Given under our hands on this day of 12th

July, 2017.

(K.D.Bansal) (Rajesh Sharma) (Manu Bishnoi) Member Technical Member/Accounts Independent Member -cum-Chairman

FORUM FOR REDRESSAL OF CONSUMER GRIEVANCES

DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM D-BLOCK, Ground Floor, Vidyut Sadan, Vidyut Nagar, Hisar-125 005 Telephone No. 01662-223081 (website: www.dhbvn.com) (e-mail ID: [email protected])

__________________________________________________________ Case No. DH/CGRF-1729/2017 Date of Institution: 04.05.2017 Date of Hearing: 25.05.2017

Date of Order: 30.05.2017

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. Govind Ram S/o Sh. G. Judha (through Sh. Nirmal

Bansal), Ch.Manakchand Ki Gali, Gali Naoan, Bhiwani regarding billing problem.


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.



Sh. Govind Ram S/o Sh. G. Judha, Ch. Manakchand Ki Gali, Gali Naoan, Bhiwani has

got an electricity connection bearing A/C No. 5299490000 under SDO/Op. City Sub-Division,

DHBVN, Bhiwani, hence this Forum has jurisdiction to hear the complaint

ORDER

The complainant has filed the present complaint (through Sh. Nirmal Bansal), stating

therein that the respondent issued bill for Rs.408244/- 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.59321 dated 25.04.2017.

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 25.05.2017. The representative of consumer and

respondent SDO were present. The SDO submitted reply through Nodal Officer/CGRF, vide

memo No. 652dated 24.05.2017, 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

32982 was recorded during the month of 02/2017. The meter was sent to lab on 23.05.2017 and

final reading was observed to be 37948.7 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:

-: 2 :-

1. The total up to date consumption recorded by the meter i.e. 37949 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

25.05.2017.

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-2016.



May, 2017.

(K.D.Bansal) (Rajesh Sharma) (Manu Bishnoi) Member Technical-cum-Chairman Member/Accounts Independent Member



__________________________________________________________ Case No. DH/CGRF-1730/2017 Date of Institution: 04.05.2017 Date of Hearing: 25.05.2017 Date of Order: 30.05.2017


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.


V/s


.


Appearance:-

For Complainant: 1.Present.




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

ORDER

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 proceedings held at Bhiwani on 25.05.2017. The complainant and representative of

respondent SDO were present. The SDO submitted reply through Nodal Officer/CGRF, vide

memo No. 653 dated 24.05.2017, 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.


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.

-: 2 :-






Regulations-2016.



May, 2017.


FORUM FOR REDRESSAL OF CONSUMER GRIEVANCES DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM D-BLOCK, Ground Floor, Vidyut Sadan, Vidyut Nagar, Hisar-125 005 Telephone No. 01662-223081 (website: www.dhbvn.com) (e-mail ID: [email protected])



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.


V/s

1. Xen/Op. Division , DHBVN, Charkhi Dadri. 2.SDO/Op. City S/Division, DHBVN, Charkhi Dadri.

.


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.



Sh. Ram Bhagat, Back SIde Geeta Bhawan, Kath Mandi, Charkhi Dadri, Bhiwani has got

an electricity connection bearing A/C No. 4759470000 under SDO/Op. City Sub-Division,

DHBVN, Charkhi Dadri, hence this Forum has jurisdiction to hear the complaint.

ORDER

The complainant has filed the present complaint, stating therein that his connection got

disconnected in the year 2011-2012 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 proceedings held at Bhiwani on 25.05.2017. 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 25.05.2017, 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.


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.





-: 2 :-






Regulations-2016.



May, 2017.


FORUM FOR REDRESSAL OF CONSUMER GRIEVANCES DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM D-BLOCK, Ground Floor, Vidyut Sadan, Vidyut Nagar, Hisar-125 005 Telephone No. 01662-223081 (website: www.dhbvn.com) (e-mail ID: [email protected])



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.


V/s


.


Appearance:-

For Complainant: 1.Representative.




Sh. Deepak Godara C/o Bala Ji Products, Hanuman Gate, Near Godara Ice Factory,

Bhiwani has got an electricity connection bearing A/C No. 6542190000 under SDO/Op. City Sub-

Division, DHBVN, Bhiwani, hence this Forum has jurisdiction to hear the complaint.

ORDER

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 10.04.2017 in KWH reading by adding 10%

extra charges.




The proceedings held at Bhiwani on 25.05.2017. The representatives of consumer and

respondent SDO were present. The SDO submitted reply through Nodal Officer/CGRF, vide his

memo No. 651 dated 24.05.2017, stating therein that the check meter was installed parallel to

Meter A/C No. PT-31-0094 to check the accuracy of existing meter installed to the premises/site

vide SJO No. 50/934 dated 15.03.2015. The details of old and new meter are as under:-

Old Meter Date

S.No.209279 Cap.3x10-60 Sr.No.2113095, Cap.3x10-60

New Check Meter

Make- Avon Make – Avon

KWH Kvah KWH

2202.6 7812.6 01.04.17 5.1 5.7

Kvah

2441.6 8291.9 21.04.17 442.7 481.9

439 479 437 476

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.

-: 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.


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.






Regulations-2016.



May, 2017.


Forum for Redressal of Consumer Grievances

DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM D-BLOCK, Ground Floor, Vidyut Sadan, Vidyut Nagar, Hisar-125 005 (website: www.dhbvn.com) (e-mail ID: [email protected]) _________________________________________________________

Case No. DH/CGRF-1737/2017

Date of Institution: 04.05.2017

Date of Hearing: 26.05.2017&23.06.2017



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.


V/s

1. Xen/Op. Division, DHBVN, Rewari.

2.SDO/Op. City-II Sub-Division, DHBVN, Rewari.


Appearance:-


For the Respondent: 1. Nodal Officer/CGRF, DHBVN,Hisar.

2.SDO/Op. City-II Sub-Divn., DHBVN, Rewari.



ORDER

Sh. Sunil Kumar, V&P.O. Dungerwas, Rewari has got an electricity connection

bearing A/C No. WW21-820 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 800-900 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 26.05.2017 at

Rewari for hearing of the case.

During the proceedings held at Rewari on 26.05.2017, 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

23.06.2017.

Subsequent proceedings held at Rewari on 23.06.2017. The consumer and

respondent SDO were present. The SDO submitted written reply through Nodal

Officer/CGRF, vide his memo No. 2548 dated 23.06.2017, stating that the site of the

consumer checked by (OP) Team, Dharuhera vide LL-1 No. 41/1056 dated 22.06.2017

and found the particulars of meter is follows:-

Meter Sr. No. - 6802820,

Meter make – Genus,

Capacity – 10-60A,

Meter Reading – 89

Accuracy – Blinking.

It is also informed that MCO affected on dated 15.06.2017 vide MCO No.

46/1118 having meter reading 27865. 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.

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,



establishment of Forum for Redressal of Grievances of consumers, Electricity

Ombudsman and Consumer Advocacy) Regulations-2016.



June, 2017.



DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM D-BLOCK, Ground Floor, Vidyut Sadan, Vidyut Nagar, Hisar-125 005 Telephone No. 01662-223081 (website: www.dhbvn.com) (e-mail ID: [email protected]) ___________________________________________________________ Case No. DH/CGRF-1749/2017 Date of Institution: 04.05.2017 Date of Hearing: 08.06.2017 Date of Interim Order: 12.06.2017


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.


V/s

1. Xen/Op. NIT Division, DHBVN, Faridabad. 2.SDO/Op. J/Colony S/Division, DHBVN, NIT Faridabad.


Appearance:-

For Complainant: 1.Present. For the Respondent: 1.Nodal Officer, CGRF, DHBVN, Hisar

2.SDO/Op. J/Colony Sub-Divn., DHBVN, NIT Faridabad.



INTERIM ORDER

Sh. Tika Ram (User: Sh. Kunwar Pal), H.No. 1019, Parvatiya Colony, Faridabad has got an

electricity connection bearing A/C No. 0548090000 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 08.06.2017 at Faridabad for hearing of the case.

The proceedings held at Faridabad on 08.06.2017. The consumer and respondent SDO were

present. The SDO submitted reply through Nodal Officer/CGRF, vide his memo No. 2091 dated

08.06.2017, 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 15.05.2015 (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 15.05.2015. 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.

-: 2 :-

The case is adjourned to the next date for conclusive hearing on 07.07.2017. 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 12.06.2017.

(K.D.Bansal) (R K Sharma) (Manu Bishnoi) Member Technical-cum-Chairman Member/Accounts Independent Member


DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM D-BLOCK, Ground Floor, Vidyut Sadan, Vidyut Nagar, Hisar-125 005 Telephone No. 01662-223081 (website: www.dhbvn.com) (e-mail ID: [email protected]) ___________________________________________________________ Case No. DH/CGRF-1749/2017 Date of Institution: 04.05.2017 Date of Hearing: 08.06.2017 & 07.07.2017 Date of Order: 11.07.2017


Present:-




In the matter of complaint of Sh. Tika Ram (User: Sh. Kunwar Pal), H.No. 1019,

Parvitaya Colony, Faridabad regarding billing problem.


V/s

1. Xen/Op. NIT Division, DHBVN, Faridabad. 2.SDO/Op. J/Colony S/Division, DHBVN, NIT Faridabad.


Appearance:-


2.SDO/Op. J/Colony Sub-Divn., DHBVN, NIT Faridabad.



ORDER

Sh. Tika Ram (User: Sh. Kunwar Pal), H.No. 1019, Parvatiya Colony, Faridabad has got an electricity connection bearing A/C No. 0548090000 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 08.06.2017 at Faridabad for hearing of

the case.

The proceedings held at Faridabad on 08.06.2017. The consumer and respondent SDO

were present. The SDO submitted reply through Nodal Officer/CGRF, vide his memo No. 2091

dated 08.06.2017, 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 15.05.2015 (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 15.05.2015.

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.


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.

-: 2 :-

With this interim order, the case was adjourned to the next date for conclusive hearing on

07.07.2017. 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 07.07.2017. The complainant

and respondent SDO were present. The SDO filed a written statement through Nodal Officer vide

No.3038 dated 07.07.2017 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.



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-2016. File be consigned to record.

Given under our hands on this day of 11th July, 2017.


FORUM FOR REDRESSAL OF CONSUMER GRIEVANCES DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM D-BLOCK, Ground Floor, Vidyut Sadan, Vidyut Nagar, Hisar-125 005 Telephone No. 01662-223081 (website: www.dhbvn.com) (e-mail ID: [email protected]) ___________________________________________________________ Case No. DH/CGRF-1751/2017 Date of Institution: 05.05.2017 Date of Hearing: 08.06.2017 & 07.07.17 Date of Order: 11.07.2017


Present:-




In the matter of complaint M/s Asian Polymer, A/1/268, Ist Floor, Neelam Bata

Road, NIT, Faridabad regarding billing problem.


V/s

1. Xen/Op. Division , DHBVN, Ballabgarh. 2.SDO/Op. S/U S/Division, DHBVN, Ballabgarh.


Appearance:-

For Complainant: 1.Representative. For the Respondent: 1.Nodal Officer, CGRF, DHBVN, Hisar

2.SDO/Op. S/U Sub-Divn., DHBVN, Ballabgarh.



ORDER

M/s Asian Polymer, A/1/268, Ist Floor, Neelam Bata Road, NIT, Faridabad has got an

electricity connection bearing A/C No. 2079001000 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 case.

The proceedings held at Faridabad on 08.06.2017. The representatives of consumer and

respondent SDO were present. The SDO submitted reply through Nodal Officer/CGRF, vide his

memo No. 2290 dated 07.06.2017, stating therein that M/s Asian Polymer having A/C No.

2079001000 in LT category with sanctioned load 49.500 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 07.07.17 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.

M&P checking report dated 07.07.2017 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-2016.




FORUM FOR REDRESSAL OF CONSUMER GRIEVANCES DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM D-BLOCK, Ground Floor, Vidyut Sadan, Vidyut Nagar, Hisar-125 005 Telephone No. 01662-223081 (website: www.dhbvn.com) (e-mail ID: [email protected]) ___________________________________________________________ Case No. DH/CGRF-1756/2017 Date of Institution: 17.05.2017 Date of Hearing: 07.06.2017 & 11.07.2017 Date of Order: 12.07.2017 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. Balwant S/o Sh. Deva Ram, Village, Devigarh

Punia, Tehsil, Barwala, Distt., Hisar regarding billing problem.


V/s 1. XEN/Op. Division No.2, DHBVN, Hisar. 2.SDO/Op. Sub-Division, DHBVN,Barwala. …………….Respondents

Appearance:-

For Complainant: 1.None. For the Respondent: 1.Nodal Officer, CGRF, DHBVN, Hisar.

2.Representative of SDO/Op. Sub-Division, DHBVN, Barwala.



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 07.06.2017

at Hisar for hearing of the case.

The proceedings held at Hisar on 07.06.2017. 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. 2039 dated 07.06.2017, stating

therein that the DS connection was released to the consumer with 0.440 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. 3837 dated 05.09.2016. 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 7941. 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 11.07.2017, 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 11.07.2017 alongwith

meter checking report and copy of sundry/adjustment made in the consumer account.

As per meter checking report filed, the last reading verified is 8205.9 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.


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






July, 2017.



DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM D-BLOCK, Ground Floor, Vidyut Sadan, Vidyut Nagar, Hisar-125 005 (website: www.dhbvn.com) (e-mail ID: [email protected])

_________________________________________________________ Case No. DH/CGRF-1759/2017 Date of Institution: 17.05.2017

Date of Hearing: 02.06.2017 & 4.07.2017 Date of order: 5/07/2017


Present:-




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.


V/s

1. Xen/Op. Division, DHBVN,Jind.

2.SDO, S/U Sub-Division No.2, DHBVN, Jind.


Appearance:-


For the Respondent: 1.Nodal Officer/CGRF, DHBVN,Hisar.

2.SDO, S/U Sub-Divn. No.2, DHBVN, Jind.



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 31.05.2017. 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

31.05.2017. 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 31.05.2017 please.



at Jind for hearing of the case.

The proceedings held at Jind on 02.06.2017. The consumer and the

respondent SDO were present. The SDO submitted reply through Nodal

Officer/CGRF vide his memo No. 5516 dated 30.05.2017, 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 19.11.2016 vide which the surcharge waiver

scheme has been launched and further extended up to 31.05.2017 vide sales circular

No. 17/2017 dated 25.04.2017 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.

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 1998. 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.









July, 2017.


FORUM FOR REDRESSAL OF CONSUMER GRIEVANCES DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM D-BLOCK, Ground Floor, Vidyut Sadan, Vidyut Nagar, Hisar-125 005 Telephone No. 01662-223081 (website: www.dhbvn.com) (e-mail ID: [email protected]) ___________________________________________________________ Case No. DH/CGRF-1761/2017 Date of Institution: 17.05.2017 Date of Hearing: 29.05.2017&30.06.2017 Date of Order: 30.06.2017 Before the Forum for Redressal of Consumer Grievances, DHBVN. Present:-


In the matter of complaint of M/s Surya Aerotech Industries Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 138,

Sector-3, IMT, Manesar, Gurgaon regarding billing problem.


V/s

1. Xen/Op. Division , DHBVN, Manesar.

2. SDO/Op. Sub-Division, DHBVN, Manesar.


Appearance:-

For Complainant: 1.Representative. For the Respondent: 1.Nodal Officer, CGRF, DHBVN,

Hisar 2.Representative of SDO of Sub-Divn., DHBVN, Manesar.



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.BA41-0176-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, 2016. 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.


and both the parties were asked to appear before the Forum on 29.05.2017 at Gurgaon for


During the proceedings held at Gurgaon on 29.05.2017, the representatives of consumer

and respondent SDO were present. The SDO submitted reply through Nodal Officer/CGRF, vide

his meko No. 677 dated 29.05.2017, 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. 28.06.2017.

Subsequent proceedings held at Gurgaon on 28.06.2017. The representatives of

consumer and respondent SDO were present. The SDO submitted written reply through Nodal

Officer/CGRF, vide his memo No. 1063 dated 27.06.2017 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 (BA41-0176) in the name of M/s Surya Aerotech Industries, Plot

No. 138/3, IMT, Manesar.

-: 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 17.07.2015 and billed

on N-Code (Avg. basis) from 08/2015 to 12/2015.

4. 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 01/2016.

6. In the month of 06/2016, consumer billed excess due to wrong reading and the same has

been corrected for Rs.123365/- 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 27.06.2017. The case is closed. Both the parties to bear their own cost.

-: 3 :-


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-2016.



June, 2017.

(K.D.Bansal) (Rajesh Sharma) (Manu Bishnoi) Member Technical- Member/Accounts Independent Member Cum-Chairman

Forum for Redressal of Consumer Grievances DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM D-BLOCK, Ground Floor, Vidyut Sadan, Vidyut Nagar, Hisar-125 005 (website: www.dhbvn.com) (e-mail ID: [email protected]) _________________________________________________________

Case No. DH/CGRF-1764/2017 Date of Institution: 17.05.2017 Date of Hearing: 26.05.2017&23.06.2017 Date of Order: 27.06.2017


Present:-




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

1. Xen/Op. Division, DHBVN, Kosli.

2.SDO/Op. Sub-Division, DHBVN, Palawas.


Appearance:-



2.Representative of SDO/Op. Sub-Divn.,

DHBVN, Palawas.



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.




During the proceedings held at Rewari on 26.05.2017, the consumer and

representative of respondent SDO were present. The SDO submitted reply through

Nodal Officer/CGRF, vide his memo No. 2100 dated 26.05.2017, 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 05.07.2014 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:-

-: 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. 23.06.2017. 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 23.06.2017. 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 27.06.2017 has intimated

that the premises has been checked by Sh. Dharmender Singh, JE(F) vide LL-1 No.

14/724 dated 26.06.2017. 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-

0422 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 29.06.2014 and

consumption of meter up to date i.e. 26.06.2017 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:-

-: 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

19.10.2014, the SDO/Op., Palawas has written a letter to the consumer on dated

30.10.2015 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-183484 entered into

between Sh. Om Parkash S/o Sh. Maha Singh and Sh. Ashok Kumar S/o Sh.

Om Parkash, attested and Notarized on 04.11.2015 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

27.06.2017 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.













June, 2017.


FORUM FOR REDRESSAL OF CONSUMER GRIEVANCES DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM

D-BLOCK, Ground Floor, Vidyut Sadan, Vidyut Nagar, Hisar-125 005 (website: www.dhbvn.com) (e-mail ID: [email protected])


Date of Hearing: 23.06.2017 Date of Order: 27.06.2017 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. Yogender Kumar S/o Sh. Umed Singh, Village, Khayra,

P.O. Khatod, Mohindergarh regarding billing problem.


V/s

1. Xen/Op. Division, DHBVN, Mohindergarh.

2.SDO/Op. City Sub-Division, DHBVN, Mohindergarh.


Appearance:-


For the Respondent: 1. Nodal Officer/CGRF, DHBVN,Hisar. 2. SDO/Op. City Sub-Divn., DHBVN, Mohindergarh.



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 2006. However, the bill of Rs.23000/- as on 2006 has increased

to Rs.195626/- 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.173000/- would not have been levied. The consumer

requested the Forum to get the surcharge amount withdrawn.


and both the parties were asked to appear before the Forum on 23.06.2017 at Narnaul for hearing

of the case.

The proceedings held at Narnaul on 23.06.2017. The complainant and respondent SDO


dated 23.06.2017 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 122211 during 01/2007 due to which bill raised on difference of units i.e. 116186. Bill of

consumer corrected vide SC&AR No. 106/45/230 and an amount of Rs.25260/- as principle and

Rs.114606/- 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.

-: 2 :-












June, 2017.


Forum for Redressal of Consumer Grievances DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM D-BLOCK, Ground Floor, Vidyut Sadan, Vidyut Nagar, Hisar-125 005 (website: www.dhbvn.com) (e-mail ID: [email protected])

_________________________________________________________ Case No. DH/CGRF-1769/2017

Date of Institution: 30.05.2017 Date of Hearing: 23.06.2017 Date of Order: 27.06.2017


Present:-




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.


V/s


2.SDO/Op. City-1 Sub-Division, DHBVN, Rewari.


Appearance:-



2.SDO/Op. City-1 Sub-Divn.,

DHBVN, Rewari.



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.

ORDER

The complainant has filed the present complaint stating therein that his meter is

defective/burnt. He make a request to the concerned office on 24.05.2017 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 proceedings held at Rewari on 23.06.2017. The consumer was not present

but the respondent SDO was present. The SDO submitted reply through Nodal

Officer/CGRF, vide his memo No. 2639 dated 21.06.2017, stating therein that the

consumer had submitted application on 24.05.2017 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 20.06.2017. Sh. Dhiraj Kumar, JE was deputed to visit

the site and verified that meter burnt. The meter has been replaced on 21.06.2017 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 21.06.2017. The case is closed. The parties to










June, 2017.



Case No. DH/CGRF-1770/2017

Date of Institution: 30.05.2017

Date of Hearing: 23.06.2017



Present:-




In the matter of complaint of Sh. Karan Singh S/o Sh. Ramji Lal, Village, Balawas

Ahir, Rewari regarding billing problem.


V/s


2.SDO/Op. S/U Sub-Division, DHBVN, Rewari.


Appearance:-



2.Representative of SDO/Op. S/U Sub-Divn.,

DHBVN, Rewari.



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 proceedings held at Rewari on 23.06.2017. 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. 1096 dated 23.06.2017, 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 basis @ 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 6.9.1 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.

-: 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.













June, 2017.


.



Present:-




In the matter of complaint Sh. Narendra Gupta (Mamta Engineering Corporation),

Plot No. 173, Sector-58, Faridabad regarding billing problem.


V/s

1. Xen/Op. Division , DHBVN, Ballabgarh. 2.SDO/Op. S/U S/Division, DHBVN, Ballabgarh.


Appearance:-


2. SDO/Op. S/U Sub-Divn., DHBVN, Ballabgarh.



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. 1792290000 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. 99259/- 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. 124801/- 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.


and both the parties were asked to appear before the Forum on 08.06.2017 at Faridabad for


The proceedings held at Faridabad on 08.06.2017. The representatives of consumer

and respondent SDO were present. The SDO submitted reply through Nodal Officer/CGRF,

vide his memo No. 2301 dated 08.06.2017, stating therein that the connection of M/s Narinder

Gupta having A/C No. 58-41-148 got checked by M&P wing on dated 18.07.2016 and found

meter slow by 20% and the cutoff date intimated by XEN/M&P vide memo No. 555 dated

08.08.2016 that “Account of consumer be overhauled with slowness of 20% from 21.01.2016

(KWH 13951, KVAH 18650) to 18.07.2016 (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 28.12.2016 and meter found

slow by 33.33% and cutoff date intimated by XEN/M&P vide memo No. 97 dated 19.01.2017 as

“Account of consumer be overhauled with slowness of 33.33% from 01.08.2016 (KWH 16903,

KVAH 21710) to 28.12.2016 (KWH 18303, KVAH 23361)” Accordingly a sum of Rs.124801/-

charged to the consumer vide SC&AR No. 72/R-107 with prior intimation to consumer through

notice.

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 & 28/12/2016.

2. 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 07.07.17. Both the

complainant and respondent SDO were present. SDO (OP) S/U S/D Ballabgarh placed on

record copy of meter checking report dated 18.07.2016 and 28.12.2016 alongwith load survey

data as per orders passed by this Forum on 08.06.17. 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.



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-2016.




FORUM FOR REDRESSAL OF CONSUMER GRIEVANCES DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM D-BLOCK, Ground Floor, Vidyut Sadan, Vidyut Nagar, Hisar-125 005 Telephone No. 01662-223081 (website: www.dhbvn.com) (e-mail ID: [email protected]) ___________________________________________________________ Case No. DH/CGRF-1775/2017 Date of Institution: 16.06.2017 Date of Hearing11.07.2017 Date of Order: 12.07.2017 Before the Forum for Redressal of Consumer Grievances, DHBVN.

Present:-


In the matter of complaint of Sh. Om Parkash Kapoor, House No.999, Karkhana

Mohalla, Jakhal Mandi Distt., Fatehabad regarding billing problem.


V/s 1. XEN/Op. Division No.2, DHBVN, Tohana. 2.SDO/Op. Sub-Division, DHBVN,Jakhal. …………….Respondents

Appearance:-

For Complainant: 1.None. For the Respondent: 1.Nodal Officer, CGRF, DHBVN, Hisar.

2.Representative of SDO/Op. Sub- Division, DHBVN, Jakhal.



ORDER Sh. Om Parkash H.N.999, Karkhana Mohalla Jakhal Mandi Distt Fatehanad got

an electricity connection bearing account No.HN1D-154 under (OP) Sub Divn Jakhal


The complainant has filed the present complaint stating therein that the

Respondent is sending his electricity bills on average basis for last two years even

though his meter is working OK and showing consumption. The last bill has been

raised for amount of Rs.15000.00 as arrear which is incorrect and needs to be

corrected. The complainant stated that he approached the concerned authorities

several times but no action on his grievance has been taken. The consumer requested

this forum to get his bill corrected.

The complaint was forwarded to Nodal Officer CGRF Hisar for filing written

statement on behalf of the Licensee and both the parties were asked to appear before

this Forum on 11.07.17 for hearing of the case in the present of parties.

The proceedings held at Hisar on 11.07.17. The complainant was not present.

The respondent SDO was present and filed a written statement through Nodal officer

vide No.1929 dated 10.07.17 stating that the bill prepared by computer cell Hisar from

2/15 to 10/2016 on average basis in spite of sending actual readings to the billing

agency M/s Hartron. During 10/2016 the account of consumer has been overhauled

based on actual consumption and the average billing of prior period adjusted.

After examination of the records available in the case file and considering the

statement of SDO (OP) Jakhal, the Forum finds that this is a case of adjustment of

provisional billing which has already been adjusted by the Sub Divn. as per Nigam

instructions. No further action is required at the end of Sub Divn. The Forum decides

to dispose of the complaint in terms of reply and action taken report filed by SDO. The

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



Regulation 2.59 of Haryana State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Guidelines for establishment of Forum for Redressal of Grievances of consumers, Electricity Ombudsman




July, 2017.

(K.D.Bansal) (R K Sharma) (Manu Bishnoi)

Member Technical-cum-Chairman Member/Accounts Independent Member

FORUM FOR REDRESSAL OF CONSUMER GRIEVANCES DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM D-BLOCK, Ground Floor, Vidyut Sadan, Vidyut Nagar, Hisar-125 005 Telephone No. 01662-223081 (website: www.dhbvn.com) (e-mail ID: [email protected]) ___________________________________________________________ Case No. DH/CGRF-1776/2017 Date of Institution: 16.06.2017 Date of Hearing 11.07.2017 Date of Order: 13.07.2017 Before the Forum for Redressal of Consumer Grievances, DHBVN.

Present:-


In the matter of complaint of Smt. Sunita Rani D/o Sh. Inder Singh, Arya Nagar, Hisar.,



V/s 1. XEN/Op. Division, No. II DHBVN, Hisar. 2. JE, Incharge (OP) Sub-Office, DHBVN, Balsamand …………….Respondents

Appearance:-

For Complainant: 1.Representative of Smt. Sunita Rani.

For the Respondent: 1.Nodal Officer, CGRF, DHBVN, Hisar. 2. JE, Incharge (OP) Sub-Office, DHBVN, Balsamand

.



ORDER Smt. Sunita Rani d/o Sh. Inder Singh, Arya Nagar, Hisar has got an electricity

connection bearing A/C No. KR-21-2412 Y under Sub-office, DHBVN, Balsamand,


The complainant has filed the present complaint, stating therein that:-

1 She applied a new connection under NDS category for 8.0 KW load at Vil. Arya

Nagar vide application No.18197 dated 5.9.16. The processing/service connection charges, consumer security and other charges as prescribed under the schedule of general and misc charges and as demanded by JE Sub Office Balsamand were deposited and connection released in due course.

2 She got the first bill amounting to Rs.104678.00 on average basis with zero reading. The bill includes late payment surcharge of Rs.575.00 and an amount of Rs.75391.00 on account of difference of Service connection charges and actual cost of connection said to be charged on behalf of audit.

3 The bill of Rs.104678.00 was first bill as no consumption has been shown thus the LPS of Rs.575.00 is not justified as no reading has been taken nor any previous bill generated.

4 The amount of Rs.75391.00 is wrongly charged as the actual cost of connection is chargeable where the connection is to be released on voltage level and 11 KV and above and not in case the connection is released on LT in terms of sales circular No.29/2016. As per instructions the JE Sub Office was required to verify the chargeable amount before actually debiting the amount to the consumer account as per instructions but the amount was out rightly charged without due verification in violation of Nigam’s instructions leading to harassment to her.

5 The consumer prayed for correction of the bill on actual consumption basis, withdrawal of late payment surcharge before issue of bill on dated 19.05.2017 and withdraw the difference of charges debited at behest of audit vide HM No.60 dated 15.03.17.



at Hisar for hearing of the case. The proceedings held at Hisar on 11.07.2017. The Nodal officer, JE Incharge

of (OP) Sub Office Balsamand and representative of consumer were present. JE

Incharge filed a memo No.798 dated 10.07.17 through Nodal Officer stating that the

complaint was received in his office on 04.07.17 and requested for another date for

filing the written statement in the matter. During oral submission the JE Incharge

however, submitted that matter of charging of the difference of service connection

charges and actual cost has already been referred to XEN (OP) No.II for clarification in

the matter and the charging is done as per SC No.29/2016. Regarding the billing on

actual consumption basis the JE Incharge deposed to get the actual readings verified

and prepare the bills accordingly. He requested for next date in the case.

On the other hand the representative of consumer argued that the plea taken

by JE Incharge is incorrect and the actual cost of the connection is chargeable only in

case the connection released on voltage level of 11 KV & above in terms of Para-2

“Service connection charges – New Connections” of Licensee SC No.D-29/2016 and

charging of actual cost of service connection in her case is totally unwarranted and

unjustified being NDS connection of 8.0 load released on LT. Thus the prescribed

service connection charges only as per schedule of General and misc charges are

chargeable in terms of SC No.29/2016 which has been levied and duly paid by

consumer. The representative argued before the Forum for withdrawal of charges

levied in his account on account of difference of service connection charges and actual

cost of connection, late payment surcharge and connection of bill as per reading at

site. The representative of consumer also placed on record the snap shot of consumer

meter installed at site which shows the reading of 1318 kwh as against which the bill up

to reading of 9597 units has already been raised on dated 07.07.17 which was also

objected by the complainant.

After going through the records of case file and hearing of parties the Forum

observed that the bills of the consumer have been raised without taking the actual

reading at site. The Forum further observed that the charging made in the consumer

bill on account of the difference of service connection charges and actual cost of

release of connection is not covered under the sales circular No. 29/2016 as relied by

the audit in HM N0. 60 dated 15/03/2017. The instructions stipulate such charging in

case of connection at voltage level of 11 KV. The consumer has already paid the

service connection charges and security as per applicable instructions. The Forum

therefore decides that:

1. The reading of the meter at site may be verified and bill prepared as per

actual consumption. The average billing in the consumer account may be

adjusted with surcharge.

2. The charges levied on account of difference of service connection charges

and actual cost of connection be withdrawn from the date of its charging

alongwith surcharge being not covered under the extent instructions of the

Nigam, the consumer being fed from LT under NDS category with

sanctioned load of 8 KW only.

The petition is therefore allowed. The case is closed. Both the parties to bear

their own cost.





date of its receipt.









July, 2017.


FORUM FOR REDRESSAL OF CONSUMER GRIEVANCES DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM D-BLOCK, Ground Floor, Vidyut Sadan, Vidyut Nagar, Hisar-125 005 Telephone No. 01662-223081 (website: www.dhbvn.com) (e-mail ID: [email protected]) ___________________________________________________________ Case No. DH/CGRF-1778/2017 Date of Institution: 16.06.2017 Date of Hearing: 07.07.2017 Date of Order : 11.07.2017


Present:-




In the matter of complaint Sh. P.V.Gopi, 892/Sector-08, Faridabad regarding

excess billing.


V/s

1. Xen/Op. Division , DHBVN, Ballabgarh. 2.SDO/Op. I/Area, DHBVN, Ballabgarh.


Appearance:-

For Complainant: 1.None. For the Respondent: 1.Nodal Officer, CGRF, DHBVN, Hisar

2.Representative of SDO/Op. I/Area, Sub Divn.DHBVN, Ballabgarh.



ORDER

Sh. P.V.Gopi, 892/Sector-08, Faridabad has got an electricity connection bearing A/C

No. 3228301000 under SDO/Op. I/A Sub-Division, DHBVN, Ballabgarh, hence this Forum has

jurisdiction to hear the complaint.

The complainant has filed the present complaint stating therein that they are a small

family of 3 members and are getting exorbitant bills since 2015 even during winter season. The

meter burnt during rainy season in 2015 for which the complaint was lodged. The meter is

running fast. The reading compartment is smoky and not legible and every time the box is to be

opened for taking reading. The MR is showing zero consumption at times and at other times the

reading has been shown upto 17800 which shows that meter is not working properly. The

complainant requested this Forum to get their bills corrected as they are retired people and

cannot afford to pay huge bills raised by the Licensee DHBVN.




The proceedings held at Faridabad on 07.07.2017. The complainant was not present

but the CA of the IA Sub Divn was present and filed a reply of SDO vide No.955 dated 07.07.17.

stating that the bill of the consumer was generated on average basis. Now the bill has been

corrected. A copy of the corrected bill with due date of 09.05.17 also placed on the record. The

Sub Divn representative informed the Forum that the average adjustment relating to past period

Rs.45685.00 has already been adjusted in the latest bill of consumer hence the grievance of

consumer has been redressed and requested the Forum to close the case accordingly.

After examination of the record and considering the oral submission of Sub Divn

representative, the Forum observed that the average billing pertaining to the past period has

already been adjusted. Actual consumption of the complainant for 07/2015 to 11/2015 is in the

range of 1300-1700 units in a billing cycle. The Forum therefore decides to dispose off the

complaint in terms of reply filed by SDO vide his letter dated 07.07.17 with the further direction

that the MCB installed at consumer premises may be replaced and properly sealed as the

consumer is aggrieved with the condition of the glass/MCB which is obstructing the reading in

the normal course and may lead to incorrect reading by the Meter Reader. The case is closed.

Both the parties to bear their own cost.



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





File be consigned to record. Given under our hands on this day of 11th July, 2017.


FORUM FOR REDRESSAL OF CONSUMER GRIEVANCES DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM D-BLOCK, Ground Floor, Vidyut Sadan, Vidyut Nagar, Hisar-125 005 Telephone No. 01662-223081 (website: www.dhbvn.com) (e-mail ID: [email protected]) ___________________________________________________________ Case No. DH/CGRF-1779/2017 Date of Institution: 16.06.2017 Date of Hearing: 07.07.2017 Date of Order: 11.07.2017


Present:-




In the matter of complaint of M/S Inuds Tower Ltd. Building No.10-B, 9th Floor,

DLF Cyber City Gurgaon through Sh. Deepak Kumar, energy controller in the matter of

excess charging through sundries and wrong application of multiplying factor.


V/s

1. Xen/Op. DHBVN, Ballabgarh. 2.SDO/Op. City Sub Divn.No.1, DHBVN, Ballabgarh.


Appearance:-


2.Representative of SDO.



ORDER

M/S Inuds Tower Ltd. Building No.10-B, 9th

(1) Excess billing made against account No.7734580000 in the name of Indus Tower.

Floor, DLF Cyber City Gurgaon has got an

electricity connection bearing A/C No. 7734580000 under SDO/OP City Sub divn.No.1

Ballabgarh, hence this Forum has jurisdiction to hear the complaint.

The complainant has filed the present complaint (through Sh. Deepak Kumar, Energy

Controller) stating therein that:

(2) The amount of Rs.405704.00 has been booked twice i.e. first in the month of

November 2015 and again in May-2017 which they have paid under protest.

(3) Both the amounts have wrongly been charged due to application of wrong M.F factor

and no details of charges levied had been provided to the complainant.

The complainant requested this Forum that the excess charges levied in their account

withdrawn.




The proceedings held at Faridabad on 07.07.2017. The representative of the consumer

Sh. Deepak Kumar and Commercial Assistant of the Sub Division were present. The

representative of the complainant argues his case in line with the written statement already

made before this Forum and insisted that the excess charges levied in their energy account be

withdrawn. The Sub Divisional representative deposed before the Forum that they have

received the complaint only recently and requested for time to file written reply after consulting

the relevant records. The Sub Divn representative however, stated that the amount of the

sundry has been charged twice as per half margin of audit for which necessary action is to be

taken after consulting the relevant records.

After hearing both the parties the Forum decides that the amount charged twice in the

consumer account maybe set right by the respondent SDO after consulting relevant records

within a period of 15 days. With this direction, the case is closed. Both the parties to bear their

own cost.




to this office within 30 days from the date of its receipt.




Date of Hearing: 4.07.2017 Date of order: 5/07/2017


Present:-




In the matter of complaint of Sh. Dalbir S/o Sh. Dhoop Singh, Village,

Kuchrana, Tehsil & Distt., Jind regarding release of tubewell connection.


V/s

1. Xen/Op. Division, DHBVN,Narwama.

2. SDO, (OP), DHBVN, Uchana.


Appearance:-



2. Representative of SDO, (OP), DHBVN,

Uchana.



ORDER

Sh. Dhoop Singh S/o Sh. Ram Dhari, S/o Sh. Dhoop Singh, Village, Kuchrana,

Tehsil & Distt., Jind has applied for an agricultural tubewell connection by depositing

security in October-2006 hence this Forum has jurisdiction to hear the complaint.

The complainant has filed the present complaint stating therein that he applied

an agriculture tubewell connection in 2006 and security amounting to Rs.20000.00

deposited with DHBVN on 10.10.2006. His tubewell connection has not been released

nor any information in this regard has been received. He approached the concerned

offices several times but the connection has not been released despite elapse of 11

years causing harassment and financial loss. The complainant requested this Forum to

get his electricity connection released. The complaint has attached photo copy of the

deposit receipt No.334/016733 dated 10.10.2006 for Rs.20000.00 alongwith copy of

FARAD in support of ownership proof the land wherein the connection was applied.


the Nigam and both the parties were asked to appear before the Forum on

04.074.2017 at Jind for hearing of the case.

The proceedings held at Jind on 04.07.2017. The complainant was not present.

A representative of Sub Division attended the hearing alongwith reply of SDO vide

memo No.543 dated 03.07.2017 stating that Sh.Dalbir Singh s/o Sh. Dhoop Singh,

Village Kuchrana had applied for the tubewell connection. The demand notice for

depositing estimated amount was sent but the estimated amount has not been

deposited by the consumer due to which the application was cancelled and connection

was not released. It has further stated that at present no records pertaining to case is

available as all the record of Uchana Sub Divn has been destroyed in fire during Jat

Reservation agitation and FIR No.32 dated 23.02.2016 in the matter already lodged

with the police authorities.

After perusal of the records in the case file and statement of representative of

the Uchana Sub Divn., the Forum concluded that consumer has applied for agriculture

tubewell connection as per prevailing instructions of the Licensee way back in 2006

and also deposited the security amount of Rs.20000.00 vide Receipt dated

10.10.2006. This fact has not been refuted by the Sub Division. The respondent SDO

failed to produce the records pertaining to the cancellation of the application due to

non compliance of the terms of demand notice. No copy of demand notice said to have

been issued to the consumer has been produced before the Forum on the ground of

destruction of record in the agitation.

The Forum therefore, decides that the complainant who applied the connection

as per prevailing instructions cannot be denied the connection on the ground of

destruction of record. Therefore, the consumer case file may be reconstructed, fresh

estimate be framed and connection to the applicant be released as per prevailing

instructions after observing usual formalities. The case is closed. Both the parties to

bear their own costs.




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








July, 2017.


FORUM FOR REDRESSAL OF CONSUMER GRIEVANCES DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM D-BLOCK, Ground Floor, Vidyut Sadan, Vidyut Nagar, Hisar-125 005 Telephone No. 01662-223081 (website: www.dhbvn.com) (e-mail ID: [email protected]) ___________________________________________________________ Case No. DH/CGRF-1783/2017 Date of Institution: 22.06.2017 Date of Hearing: 28.06.2017 Date of Order: 30.06.2017 Before the Forum for Redressal of Consumer Grievances, DHBVN. Present:-


In the matter of complaint of M/s Idea Cellular Ltd. (IDC), M/s Indus Tower Ltd., Building

No. 10B, 9th


Floor, DLF Cyber City, Gurugram regarding billing problem.

V/s

1. Xen/Op. S/U Division , DHBVN, Gurugram.

2. SDO/CCC IDC Sub-Division, DHBVN, Gurugram.


Appearance:-

For Complainant: 1.Representative. For the Respondent: 1.Nodal Officer, CGRF, DHBVN,

Hisar 2.Representative of SDO of CCC IDC Sub-Divn., DHBVN, Gurugram.



ORDER

M/s Idea Cellular Ltd. (IDC), M/s Indus Tower Ltd., Building No. 10B, 9th

The complainant has filed the present complaint (through Sh. Deepak Kumar S/o Sh.

Chanan Ram) stating therein that:-

Floor, DLF Cyber

City, Gurugram have got an electricity connection bearing T5043830000/NDS under SDO/CCC

IDC Sub-Division, DHBVN, Gurugram, hence this Forum has jurisdiction to hear the complaint.

1. Excess billing made against A/C No. 5043830000 in the name of Idea Cellular Ltd.

2. The amount of Rs.987034/- wrongly charged as arrear in May, 2017 and paid under

protest.

3. Both the amounts wrongly charged due to MF issue and for the last one year bills raised

on average basis. No detail of arrears etc. have been provided.

The complainant has requested the Forum to get provided proper month wise billing,

arrear detail, all M&P, MCO reports and resolved the billing issue as per Nigam instructions and

adjust the amount in their account.




The proceedings held at Gurgaon on 28.06.2017. The representatives of consumer and

respondent SDO were present. The SDO submitted written reply through Nodal Officer/CGRF,

vide his memo No. 2069 dated 28.06.2017 stating therein that the meter of the consumer was

changed vide MCO No. 0932930767 dated 10.04.2017 affected on 22.03.2016 at IR 1. The final

reading of old meter was 48211. The consumer billed on average basis for the period from

03/2016 to 15.03.2017. The consumer meter remained defective from 13.03.2016 to 22.03.2016

(10 days). Consumer account overhauled as per new meter consumption basis and access

billing Rs.11,12,718/- adjusted/credited vide SC&AR No. 116/122R as per Nigam instruction.

A copy of the reply was handed over to the representative of the consumer. The

consumer representative argued that the excess charged amount has not been fully reversed by

the sub-division and contended that at least Rs.3 lacs is yet to be adjusted. However, no

details/calculations in support of his claim placed on records. On the other hand the sub-division

representative argued the case in line with written submissions. However, on pointing out that the

surcharge already levied for the average billing period has not been adjusted at the time of

overhauling the account based on actual readings by segregating the consumption for the period

the meter remained defective. The sub-division representative agreed for the same and assured

to revise the calculations accordingly.

After hearing both the parties, examination of the records in the case file and admission

of the sub-division representative to review the calculations in respect of the surcharge levied for

the average billing period, the Forum decides to dispose off the petition as per reply of the SDO

dated 28.06.2017 with the further direction to revise the calculations and afford the credit of the

balance amount in the next bill of the consumer. The case is closed. Both the parties to bear

their own cost.

-: 2 :-












June, 2017.

(K.D.Bansal) (Rajesh Sharma) (Manu Bishnoi) Member Technical- Member/Accounts Independent Member Cum-Chairman



Present:-




In the matter of complaint of M/S Bharti Infratel Ltd. Building No.10-B, 9th Floor,

DLF Cyber City Gurgaon, ( through Sh. Deepak Kumar, Energy Controller) in the matter

of excess charging on account of wrong application of multiplying factor.


V/s

1. Xen/Op. DHBVN, Ballabgarh. 2.SDO/Op. Sub Divn., DHBVN, Tilpat (Faridabad).


Appearance:-


2. SDO Op. Sub Divn., DHBVN, Tilpat



ORDER

M/S Bharti Infratel Ltd.. Building No.10-B, 9th

Floor, DLF Cyber City Gurgaon has got an electricity connection bearing A/C No. 4616360000 under SDO/OP Sub Divn. Tilpat, hence this

Forum has jurisdiction to hear the complaint.


Controller) stating therein that excess billing amounting to Rs.1085789.00 has been made by the

respondent SDO in the month of January 2017 on account of application of wrong M.F which they

have paid under protest and requested this Forum to get this amount withdrawn and setting right

their account in the interest of justice.



the case.

The proceedings held at Faridabad on 07.07.2017. The representative of the consumer, Sh.

Deepak Kumar and respondent SDO were present. The representative of the complainant argued

his case in line with the written statement already made before this Forum and insisted that the

excess charges levied in their energy account be withdrawn. The respondent SDO was present and filed his written statement through Nodal Office vide No.232 dated 7.7.17 stating therein that the

refund of Rs.1015327.00 plus surcharge of Rs.91380.00 aggregating to Rs.1106707.00 has already

been given in the consumer account and shall be reflected in the next bill likely to be generated

within next 3 days. A copy of the sundry with detailed calculation also placed on records. A copy of

the reply filed by the SDO was handed over to the complainant. No further observations/rejoinder

filed by the complainant on the reply/action taken report of the respondent SDO.

After hearing both the parties and perusal of the records placed in the case file, the Forum

observed that excess amount charged to the consumer account amounting to Rs.1015327.00 has

already been adjusted in the consumer account. The Forum therefore decides to dispose off the

complaint in terms of reply of SDO filed before this Forum vide letter dated 07.07.2017. Case is









FORUM FOR REDRESSAL OF CONSUMER GRIEVANCES DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM D-BLOCK, Ground Floor, Vidyut Sadan, Vidyut Nagar, Hisar-125 005 Telephone No. 01662-223081 (website: www.dhbvn.com) (e-mail ID: [email protected]) ___________________________________________________________ Case No. DH/CGRF-1795/2017 Date of Institution: 06.07.2017 Date of Hearing11.07.2017 Date of Order: 12.07.2017 Before the Forum for Redressal of Consumer Grievances, DHBVN.

Present:-


In the matter of complaint of Sh.Dharam Pal s/o Sh. Om Parkash Narnaund Distt.,

Hisar regarding billing problem.


V/s 1. XEN/Op. Division, DHBVN, Hansi. 2.SDO/Op. Sub-Division, DHBVN,Narnaund. …………….Respondents

Appearance:-

For Complainant: 1.Present. For the Respondent: 1.Nodal Officer, CGRF, DHBVN, Hisar.

2. SDO/Op. Sub- Division, DHBVN, Narnaund.



ORDER Sh. Dharam Pal s/o Sh. Om Parkash Narnaund Distt., Hisar got an electricity

connection bearing account No.NN-41-0001 under (OP) Sub Divn Narnaund hence this


The complainant has filed the present complaint stating therein that their bill for

the month of Nov.2016 was raised for Rs.68786.00 which they have paid on 18.11.16.

Thereafter, next bill was raised for Rs.180366.00. The bill was incorrect and after

rectification they deposited an amount of Rs.60680.00 on 23.01.2017. Next bill was

again raised on average basis and after correct they deposited Rs.70000.00 against

bill of Rs.662160.00 on 20.04.17. Their factory is closed since Dec.2016 by the bills are

being raised continuously on higher side. The complainant requested for correction of

their bills.

The complaint was forwarded to Nodal Officer CGRF Hisar for filing written

statement on behalf of the Licesee and both the parties were asked to appear before

this Forum on 11.07.17 for hearing of the case in the present of parties.

The proceedings held at Hisar on 11.07.17. The complainant and the

respondent SDO were present. SDO(OP) Narnaund filed a written statement through

Nodal officer vide No.958 dated 10.07.17 stating that the amount of Rs.533900.00

inclujding surcharge is adjustable in the consumer account for which the case has

been prepared and forwarded for approval of XEN(OP) DHBVN Hansi being HT

industrial case and the amount shall be credited/adjusted after receipt of requisite

approval from appropriate authority. The complainant was present. A copy of reply filed

by SDO was handed over to him. The consumer prayed the forum to get the disputed

amount adjusted at the earliest so as to avoid disconnection of his premises by the

Licensee Nigam as he is paying the current bills regularly.

After examination of the records available in the case file and considering the

statement of SDO (OP) Narnaund, the Forum finds that the case for refund/adjustment

has already been initiated by the respondent SDO. The Forum therefore decides that

the refundable amount of Rs.533900.00 may be adjusted in the consumer account and

reflected in the next bill of the consumer. The SDO is further directed not to take any

coercive action against the consumer on account of the amount in dispute and accept

the current bill from the consumer. The case is closed. Both the parties to bear their

own cost.





date of its receipt. If the petitioner is not satisfied with the decision of CGRF, he has the right to file an



Regulation 2.59 of Haryana State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Guidelines for establishment of Forum for Redressal of Grievances of consumers, Electricity Ombudsman




July, 2017.





Case No. DH/CGRF-1796/2017 Date of Institution:11.07.2017 Date of Hearing: 14.07.2017 Date of Order: 17.07.2017

Before the Forum for Redressal of Consumer Grievances, DHBVN Present:

1 K.D.Bansal, Member Technical-cum-Chairman 2 Rajesh Sharma, Member Accounts 3 Manu Bishnoi, Independent Membr

In the matter of complaint of Sh. Bikar Singh s/o Sh. Hardayal Singh Kirti Nagar Sirsa

regarding excess charging in the bill.


V/s

1 Xen/Op. City DHBVN, Sirsa 2 SDO (OP) I/Area Sub Divn, DHBVN, Sirsa.

…….Respondents

Appearance:- For Complainant:

1 Consumer in person

For the Respondent 1 Representative of SDO (OP) I/Area Sub Divn, DHBVN,

Sirsa 2 Nodal Officer/CGRF, DHBVN, Hisar



ORDER

Sh. Bikar Singh, s/o Sh. Hardayal Singh, Ward No.14 Main Road, Kirti Nagar, Sirsa has

got an electricity connection bearing A/C No. 2432380000 under SDO/Op. I/Area Sub-Division,

DHBVN, Sirsa, hence this Forum has jurisdiction to hear the complaint.

The complainant has filed the present complaint stating therein that he is running a

workshop and paying electricity bills regularly. The current bill raised by the DHBVN is of huge

amount and does not match his actual consumption at site and also the past bills. The bill is

inflated and incorrect. The consumer requested this Forum to get his bill corrected based on

actual consumption.


and both the parties were asked to appear before the Forum on 14.07.2017 at Sirsa for hearing

of the case.

The proceedings of the case held at Sirsa on 14.07.17. Both the SDO and complainant

were present. The consumer argued his case in line with the written submission and insisted

that his current bill is abnormally high compared to his past bills and also actual consumption

recorded by the meter at site. The consumer submitted that there is some error in recording of

consumption and requested for correction of the bill considering his financial status and also

being a regular paying customer of the Nigam.

The respondent SDO filed written statement through Nodal Officer vide No.2075/CA

dated 13.07.17 stating that the consumer is having an LT industrial connection with sanctioned

load of 11.9 kw. During the period 28.03.17 to 02.05.17 reading recorded by Meter Reader as

72229 KVAH and 59108 kwh. as compared to old reading of 64844 KVAH and 58361 kwh

respectively hence the bill for Rs.46809.00 has been prepared based on the difference of

reading i.e.7385 KVAH & 747 kwh being LT consumer. Moreover, in the next month during

02.05.17 to 03.06.17 reading recorded as 72471-72229=242 KVAH and 59291-59108=183 kwh

and current bill issued for Rs.2674.00. As per record both bills issued as per reading difference

and correct. The oral submissions by representative of Sub divn before the Forum were also in

line with the written statement.

After considering facts of the case, records available in the case file and hearing of both

the parties, the Forum is of the view that the consumer was being billed up to April, 2017 by

converting the KWH reading to KVAH by applying the standard power factor of .9 being LT

connection as is apparent from the KWAH and KVAH reading of the consumer in the records.

The KVAH readings as shown in the bills are converted readings based on standard power

factor and not as per actual. In the month of May, 2017, the actual KVAH reading were recorded

by the meter reader and submitted to the sub division and the bill was prepared based on the

difference of converted KVAH reading earlier available in the data base and the actual KVAH

reading now submitted by the Meter Reader to the sub division. This fact was not refuted by the

sub division during the arguments of the case. The very basis taken for billing in this way was

incorrect in the first instance and resulted into higher/ inflated bill to the consumer in the month

of May, 2017.

The Forum after considering all the facts decides that;

1. The bills of the consumer for the period of May, 2017 may be revised by converting

the KWH reading to KVAH as per earlier practice by applying standard power factor.

2. For future bills, the IR of KVAH reading as recorded on 2/05/2017 i.e. 72229 may be

taken as initial reading.

The case is closed. Parties to bear their own cost.



















In the matter of complaint of Sh. Des Raj V&PO Bajekan, Sirsa regarding excess

charging in the bill.


V/s

1 Xen/Op. S/U Divn DHBVN, Sirsa 2 SDO (OP) S/U Sub Divn, DHBVN, Sirsa.

…….Respondents


1 Sh.Vakil Chand s/o Sh. Des Raj

For the Respondent 1 SDO (OP) S/U Sub Divn, DHBVN, Sirsa 2 Nodal Officer/CGRF, DHBVN, Hisar



ORDER

Sh. Des Raj, V&PO Bajekan , Sirsa has got an electricity connection bearing A/C No. K-

3410008-LT under SDO/Op. S/U Sub-Division, DHBVN, Sirsa, hence this Forum has jurisdiction

to hear the complaint.

The complainant has filed the present complaint(through Sh. Vakil Chand s/o Sh.Des

Raj) stating therein he is having a flour mill connection in the name of his father (Sh. Des Raj)

and paying bills regularly as and when raised by Nigam. The consumer stated that from June-

2017 onwards the bill amount has suddenly increased which is not correct and does not

commensurate with actual consumption. The consumer requested for correction of his electricity

bill and further prayed for future electricity bills as per actual consumption recorded by the meter

installed at site.



of the case.

The proceedings of the case held at Sirsa on 14.07.17. Both the SDO and complainant

were present. The complainant argued his case in line with the written submission and insisted

that his current bills are abnormally high compared to his past bills and also actual consumption

recorded by the meter at site. The consumer submitted that there is some error in recording of

consumption and requested for correction of the bill considering his financial status and also

being a regular paying customer of Nigam. The complainant further argued that he apprehends

that in the past his actual KVAH readings were not recorded by the MR and worked out by

applying the standard power factor to the recorded kwh and in the current bills the actual KVAH

reading has been taken and bills have been prepared by taking the difference of actual KVAH

recorded now and normative KVAH worked out in the previous bills by applying standard power

factor to kwh reading thereby preparing inflated and incorrect bill in the billing cycle where the

actual KVAH reading recorded. The complainant argued that this fact is corroborated from the

subsequent bills where the KVAH and kwh billing are corresponding without any major

difference. The complainant prayed for correction of bill in line with the argument.

The respondent SDO filed the written statement through Nodal Officer vide No. 1275

dated 13.07.17 stating that the meter consumer was replaced vide MCO No.51/703 dated

05.11.16 as per instructions of HERC circulated by CE/Comml DHBVN Hisar vide SC D-

13/2015 as applicable from 01.04.15. The consumer represented to his office for correction of

energy bill but according to ledger record, the energy bill is correct. The consumption data of

subject cited account from 10/2016 to 05/2017 also placed on record. In addition, an amount of

Rs. 2665.00 adjusted vide SC&AR No.298/85 against N code billing to the consumer for the

month of April-2017. The SDO submitted that the bill is correct. There is no omission and

complaint is liable for dismissal being without any merit. The SDO was asked to place on

records the copies of records where the meter reader has recorded the readings in the first

instance (Kalamju). The requisite details have been placed on records by the SDO.

After considering facts of the case, records available in the case file and hearing of both

the parties, the Forum is of the view that the consumer was being billed up to March, 2017 by

converting the KWH reading to KVAH by applying the standard power factor of .9 being LT

connection as is apparent from the KWAH and KVAH reading of the consumer in the

records/Kalamju. The KVAH readings as shown in the bills are converted readings based on

standard power factor and not as per actual. The meter of the consumer was replaced in

November, 2016 vide MCO No. 51/703 dated 5/11/2016 at IR 1 (KVAH). However, the KVAH

readings continued to be taken by the meter reading agency by applying standard power factor

to KWH. In April, 2017 no reading were taken and in May, 2017, the actual KVAH reading were

taken causing the inflated bill to the consumer i.e. the consumer was billed on actual KVAH

reading minus the normative (converted) KVAH reading as exist in the records on the day.

The Forum after considering all the facts decides that the consumer account may be

overhauled for the period from the date of change of meter i.e. November, 2016 to May, 2017.

The IR of the KVAH in November is 1 as already available in the records. The available KVAH

in the month of May is 11022. The difference in KVAH i.e. 11021 be billed minus already billed

to the consumer in this period. The Forum further decides that action against the meter reading

agency for recording improper and incorrect reading may also be taken by the respondent sub

division in accordance with the instructions of the Licensee. The case is closed. Both the parties

to bear their own cost.










Case No. DH/CGRF-1786/2017 Date of Institution: 04.07.2017

Date of Hearing: 21.07.2017 Date of Order: 24.07.2017


Present:-




In the matter of complaint of Sh. Yatinder Singh Yadav, House No.55-D, Gali No.3 Vikas

Nagar, Rewari regarding non receipt of bill.


V/s




Appearance:-

For Complainant: 1.Present


2.SDO/Op. S/U Sub-Divn., DHBVN, Rewari.



ORDER

Sh. Yatinder Singh Yadav, House No.55-D, Gali No.3 Vikas Nagar, Rewari has got an

electricity connection bearing account No.ABSL-5353 under (OP) S/U Sub Divn Reewari hence this


The complainant has filed the present complaint stating that his meter was installed in March-

2016 but no bill has been received. Every time he visited the S/D for getting the bhill prepared

manually for payment and this is causing harassment to him. Consumer5 requested for preparation

and delivery of bill in timely manner.


both the parties were asked to appear before the Forum on 21.07.2017 at Rewari for hearing of the

case.

The proceedings held at Rewari on 21.07.17. Both the consumer and SDO were present. The

SDO submitted reply through Nodal Officer/CGRF, vide his memo No. 1516 dated 21.07.2017, stating

therein that the bills of the consumer have already been rectified and an amount of Rs.13657.00

already adjusted vide SCA&R No.33/10 and the correct bill has been issued to consumer. A copy of

reply was handed over to the complainant.

During hearing SDO informed before the Forum that the account of the consumer has been

mapped in the DHBVN system and henceforth all the bills shall be prepared and delivered on time.

The consumer during hearing agreed that a short message regarding generation of current bill has

been received in the registered mobile number.

After examination of the records in the case file and hearing both the parties, the Forum noted

that the complaint of the consumer regarding non receipt of bill has already been redressed. The

Forum therefore decides to dispose of the complaint in terms of reply of SDO.The case is closed. Both

the parties to bear the cost.




Electricity Regulatory Commission (Guidelines for establishment of Forum for Redressal of Grievances

of consumers, Electricity Ombudsman and Consumer Advocacy) Regulations-2016.



July, 2017.







Present:-




In the matter of complaint of Sh. Suresh Kumar s/o Sh. Kanwar Singh, Village Bodia

Kamalpur Distt. Rewari regarding disruption in supply and other issues.


V/s




Appearance:-






ORDER Sh. Suresh Kumar , s/o Sh. Kanwar Singh, Village Bodiya Kamalpur, Distt. Rewari has got an

electricity connection bearing account No. PD-659 under (OP) S/U Sub Divn Rewari hence this Forum

has jurisdiction to hear the complaint.

The complainant has filed the present complaint stating that his electricity supply disrupted

w.e.f. 17.01.17 and has not been restored by respondent SDO despite repeated requests to the

concerned authorities. The complainant also raised the issues of corruption and other similar issues in

the electricity offices. The complainant requested for restoration of supply.



case.

The proceedings held at Rewari on 21.07.17. The complainant and SDO were present. The


therein that the complaint is false and supply is running OK as per site visit of JE area incharge. A

copy of the reply was handed over to the complainant who was not satisfied with the reply of SDO and

insisted that his supply is still disrupted and asked for fresh site verification.

The Forum directed the SDO to reverify the facts and a detailed report alongwith videography

be submitted to the Forum by 24.07.17 so as to decide the case of the matter. The respondent SDO

has submitted site verification report alongwith videography and site skech on 24.07.17. The site

verification states that the site of the consumer checked by SDO alongwith Sh. Mulkh Raj JE, Sh.

Surender JE, Sh.Satish JE and found supply running smoothly and there is no any issue of electricity

problem and the complaint is bogus and false.

After examination of the records in the case file and fresh site verification report filed by SDO,

the Forum is of the opinion that there is no disruption in electricity supply to the consumer premises.

The Forum therefore decides to dispose of the compliant as per site verification report of the

concerned officers. The Forum further decides not to pass any specific orders on the other issues

raised by the complainant and the complainant is at liberty to approach appropriate authorities in this

regard. The case is closed. Both the parties to bear their own cost.








July, 2017.






Present:-




In the matter of complaint of Smt. Asha Kumar w/o Sh. Satbir, Dhani Chandpur Bawal Road

Rewari regarding release of new three phase connection.


V/s




Appearance:-






ORDER

Smt. Asha Kumar w/o Sh. Satbir, Dhani Chandpur Bawal Road Rewari has applied for a new

three phase electricity connection under (OP) S/U Sub Divn Rewari hence this Forum has jurisdiction


The complainant has filed the present complaint stating that she applied for 6.0 kw three phase

electricity connection from the respondent SDO but no action on her request has been taken for the

last one month even after meeting with concerned SDO in this regard. The consumer requested this

Forum to get her electricity connection released.



case.



therein that the complainant has deposited security for 5.0 kw connection and as per statement of

consumer clerk, the file was deposited on 13.07.17. As per Nigam’s instructions (SC No.D-29/2015)

three phase connection can not be allowed. During hearing the SDO informed the Forum that the area

of consumer is an unauthorized area and no three phase connection or connection above 5.0 kw load

can be released in terms of applicable Nigam instructions i.e. SC 29/2015.

The complainant was present and argued that their connection is unnecessarily held up

whereas similar type of other connections even upto load of 20 kw have been released in her area by

the respondent SDO. The complainant insisted that electricity connection as per application be got

released.

After examination of the records in the case file, submissions of respondent SDO and

provisions of the applicable sale circular D-29/2015, the Forum agrees with the reply of the SDO and

dispose of the complaint accordingly. The SDO is directed to take action in the matter as per relevant

instructions. The case is closed. Both the parties to bear their own cost.








July, 2017.






Present:-




In the matter of complaint of Sh. Nilesh , s/o Hari Ram, Plot No.34, South City, Rewari

regarding over loading of transformer.


V/s




Appearance:-

For Complainant: 1.None





ORDER

Sh. Nilesh , s/o Hari Ram, Plot No.34, South City, Rewari has got an electricity connection

bearing account No. 3542970050 under (OP) S/U Sub Divn Rewari hence this Forum has jurisdiction


The complainant has filed the present complaint stating that the cost of the transformer

installed in the area was deposited by him and the SDO S/U S/D has released other connections

through this T/F which is wrong and requested this Forum to get the connections removed.



case.

The proceedings held at Rewari on 21.07.17. The SDO was present but the complainant was

not present. The SDO submitted reply through Nodal Officer/CGRF, vide his memo No. 1514 dated

21.07.2017, stating therein that subject cited T/F is installed by the Nigam as per copy of verification

report of Sh. Sunil Kumar JE/F and the complaint of consumer if false.

The complainant was not present and respondent SDO informed the Forum that the contents

of the complaint are incorrect and therefore the complaint is liable for dismissal.

After examination of the records in the case file and hearing the SDO, the Forum decides to

dispose of the compliant being devoid of merits. The case is closed. Both the parties to bear their own

cost.








July, 2017.







Present:-




In the matter of complaint of Sh. Sat Parkash s/o Sh. Umrao Singh, Kalaka Road Vikas Nagar,

near Puran Nagar Rewari regarding Load Shedding.


V/s




Appearance:-






ORDER

Sh. Sat Parkash s/o Sh. Umrao Singh, Kalaka Road Vikas Nagar, near Puran Nagar Rewari

has got an electricity connection bearing account No. VNID-4950 under (OP) S/U Sub Divn Rewari


The complainant has filed the present complaint stating that electricity supply in their lane is

given through single phase though in the adjacent lane three phase electric installation is available.

The consumer stated that due to single phase supply there is problem of over loading and supply is

disrupted often. The consumer requested to get his grievance redressed.



case.

The proceedings held at Rewari on 21.07.17. Both the consumer and SDO were present. The


therein that area checked by Sh. Raj Bir JE and reported that the area falls under SDO (OP) City-II

Rewari. The complainant was present and requested the Forum to get his problem redressed by

allowing supply through three phase line.

After examination of the records in the case file and hearing both the parties, the Forum

observed that both the Sub Divisions i.e. S/U Sub Divn. and City-II Sub Divn fall under the XEN (OP)

Divn. Rewari. The XEN (OP) Rewari present during the hearing of Forum and assured the Forum to

get the grievance redressed from either of the SDOs. Accordingly the Forum decides to dispose of the

compliant with the direction to XEN (OP) Rewari to get the grievance of complainant relating to single

phase supply redressed within a period of 30 days. The case is closed. Both the parties to bear their

own cost.












July, 2017.



D-BLOCK, Ground Floor, Vidyut Sadan, Vidyut Nagar, Hisar-125 005 Telephone No. 01662-223081 (website: www.dhbvn.com) (e-mail ID: [email protected])


Before the Forum for Redressal of Consumer Grievances, DHBVN

Present:


In the matter of complaint of Sh. Partap Singh s/o Sh. Basti Ram, Sadhu Nagar, Near Sun City

Project, Gali No.1, Rewari regarding shifting of poles.


V/s 1 Xen/Op. Division, DHBVN, Rewari 2 SDO, (OP) City Sub-Division, DHBVN, Kosli

…….Respondents

Appearance:-

For Complainant: Present

For the Respondent 1 Nodal Officer/CGRF, DHBVN, Hisar 2 SDO (OP) City-II Rewari



ORDER Sh. Partap Singh s/o Sh. Basti Ram, Sadhu Nagar, Near Sun City Project, Gali No.1, Rewari

has got an electricity connection bearing account No.OD-1205 under (OP) City Sub Divn -II Rewari


The complainant has filed the present complaint stating that Nigam has installed electric pole

adjacent to his house. The boundary wall of the house was already constructed and the pole has been

installed later on. Due to close proximity of the pole, there is possibility of electrocution in the rainy

season. The complainant requested this Forum to get the pole shifted.



case.



therein that the site has been checked and found that the shifting of pole is not technically feasible.

There are two no LT line and one No.11 KV line on the same pole and there is no space to shift the

pole. It is stated that LT & HT line exist before the const. f new house of consumer. SDO also placed

on record the site photographs in support of his claim. A copy of reply was handed over to complainant

who decided to argue the case and insisted that the pole was erected later on and his house existed

before installation of the pole. The complainant requested for shifting of pole to avoid loss of

life/property due to electrocution.

The respondent SDO argued the case in line with written submission and informed that Forum

that the house has been extended later on and there is no technical feasibility for shifting of the pole

elsewhere.

After examination of the records in the case file and hearing of the parties the Forum observed

that the complainant has extended construction of boundary wall and first floor of his house causing

proximity to the electricity pole as apparent from site photographs placed on record by the respondent

SDO, in violation of provisions of the Electricity Act. The Forum therefore, decides to dispose of the

complaint in terms of reply filed by SDO vide his letter dated 21.07.17. The case is closed. Both the

parties to bear their own cost.








July, 2017.



D-BLOCK, Ground Floor, Vidyut Sadan, Vidyut Nagar, Hisar-125 005 Telephone No. 01662-223081

(website: www.dhbvn.com) (e-mail ID: [email protected]) ___________________________________________________________

Case No. DH/CGRF-1793/2017 Date of Institution: 06.07.2017 Date of Hearing: 25.07.2017 Date of Order: 27.07.2017 Before the Forum for Redressal of Consumer Grievances, DHBVN. Present:-

K.D.Bansal, Member Technical-cum-Chairman Rajesh Sharma, Member/Accounts

In the matter of complaint of Sh. G.L.Rithalia, 507 Gali No.9, Gandhi Nagar Gurgaon regarding billing

problem.


V/s

1. Xen/Op. S/U Division , DHBVN, Gurgaon. 2. SDO (OP) S/D DHBVN Kadipur 3. SDO (OP) DHBVN Bhora Kalan.


Appearance:-


2. SDO (Op) Kadipur 3. None from SDO Bhora Kalan



ORDER

Sh. Sh. G.L.Rithalia, 507 Gali No.9, Gandhi Nagar Gurgaon has got an electricity connection bearing

account No. 6749160000 under SDO (OP) DHBVN Kadipur hence this Forum has jurisdiction to hear the

complaint.

The complainant has filed the present complaint stating that he has two different connections from DHBVN

one under (OP) S/D Bhora Kalan and other under (OP) S/D Kadipur Gurgaon. The consumer complained that the

meter rent @ Rs.40.00 is charged in respect of connection pertaining to (OP) S/D Bhora Kalan whereas no such

charges are levied for the connection under SDO (OP) Kadipur. The complainant requested for withdrawal of

excess meter rent charges from his bill by SDO (OP) Bhora Kalan.

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 25.07.2017 at Gurgaon for hearing of the case.

The proceedings held at Gurgaon on 25.07.2017. The complainant was not present nor any

representative appeared on his behalf. The respondent SDO (O) S/D Kadipur Gurgaon was present and nobody

from (OP) Bhora Kalan was present. The SDO (OP) Kadipur filed reply vide No.1660 dated 20.07.17 through

Nodal Officer stating that no meter rent is charged in respect of connections bearing account No.6749160000 in

the name of Sh. G.L. Rithalia pertaining to his office.

After perusal of records in the case file, the Forum observed that the consumer has deposited the cost of

meter with DHBVN alongwith other charges vide BA-16 datd 9.10.15. As per applicable instructions no meter rent

is to be charged from consumer in case consumer has deposited the cost of meter in full.

The Forum therefore decides the meter rent charged from consumer in respect of his connection

pertaining to Bhora Kalan S/D may be refunded/adjusted after checking the relevant and facts by SDO(OP) Bhora

Kalan that the full cost of meter ( and not the meter security equivalent to the cost of the meter) has been

recovered from the consumer at the time of release of connection. The case is closed. Both the parties to bear

their own costs.

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-2016.



July, 2017.

(K.D.Bansal) (Rajesh Sharma) Member Technical- Member/Accounts

Cum Chairman




Case No. DH/CGRF-1794/2017 Date of Institution: 17/07/2017 Date of Hearing: 25/07/17

Date of Order: 27/07/2017 Before the Forum for Redressal of Consumer Grievances, DHBVN. Present:-


In the matter of complaint of Sh. Deepak Sachdeva, Plot No. 2468, First Floor, Sector-57

Gurugram regarding shifting of Transformer.


V/s


2. SDO/OP South City Sub-Division, DHBVN, Gurugram.


Appearance:-

For Complainant: 1.None For the Respondent: 1.Nodal Officer, CGRF, DHBVN, Hisar

2. Representative of SDO South City Sub-Division, DHBVN, Gurugram



ORDER

Sh. Deepak Sachdeva, Plot No. 2468, First Floor, Sector-57, Gurugram has filed the

present compliant stating therein that they have a plot No. 2481-P in Sector-57 Gurugram and

there is a transformer installed in their plot. The complainant requested for shifting of T/F

alongwith allied installation so as to enable him to utilize the property.


and both the parties were asked to appear before the Forum on 25/07/2017 at Gurgaon for


The proceedings held at Gurgaon on 25/07/2017. The complainant was not present nor

did any representative appear on his behalf. The representative of SDO was present. The SDO

submitted written reply through Nodal Officer/CGRF vide his memo No. 664 dated 24/07/2017

stating therein that the estimate for shifting of 220 KVA T/F has been prepared and sanctioned

in his office and 1.5% supervision charges have also been deposited by HUDA and work for

shifting of T/F is now to be executed by HUDA. A copy of SDE/Electrical, HUDA letter dated

27/06/2017 and SJO No. 111/89 dated 30/06/2017 also placed on record.

The consumer was not present to argue the case however as per reply of respondent

SDO placed on record alongwith letter of HUDA, Electrical Division confirming that the work of

shifting of T/F is to be executed by them for which necessary formalities have already been

completed by respondent SDO, the Forum is of the opinion that no further action is required on

the part of Licensee DHBVN. The Forum therefore, decides to dispose of the complaint in terms

of action already taken by the respondent SDO in the matter and confirmation of HUDA,

Electrical Division. The case is closed. Both the parties to bear their own cost.









(K.D.Bansal) (Rajesh K. Sharma) Member Technical- Member/Accounts

Cum Chairman


DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM D-BLOCK, Ground Floor, Vidyut Sadan, Vidyut Nagar, Hisar-125 005

Telephone No. 01662-223081 (website: www.dhbvn.com) (e-mail ID: [email protected])

___________________________________________________________ Case No. DH/CGRF-1798/2017 Date of Institution: 11.07.2017 Date of Hearing: 25.07.2017 Date of Order: 27.07.2017 Before the Forum for Redressal of Consumer Grievances, DHBVN. Present:-


In the matter of complaint of Sh. Gaj Raj Singh s/o Sh.Sardar Singh, VPO Jaitpur Tehsil & Distt Rewari



V/s

1. Xen/Op. Division , DHBVN, Manesar. 2. SDO (OP) S/D DHBVN Pataudi


Appearance:-


2.None from SDO



ORDER

Sh. Gaj Raj Singh s/o Sh. Sardar Singh, VPO Jaitpur Tehsil & Distt Rewari has got an electricity

connection bearing account No. CL-02-2088A under SDO (OP) Pataudi hence this Forum has jurisdiction to

hear the complaint.

The complainant has filed the present complaint stating that excess charges has been levied in his

bill and the same has not been withdrawn in spite of his continuous efforts made since March-2014 in this

regard. On enquiry it was informed that the bills have been raised on MMC/average basis. The complainant

requested for withdrawal of excess charges from his bill.

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 25.07.2017 at Gurgaon for hearing of the case.

The proceedings held at Gurgaon on 25.07.2017. The complainant was not present nor any

representative appeared on his behalf. The respondent SDO was not present but a written statement on his

behalf by Nodal Officer CGRF vide No.1365 dated 25.07.17 stating that electricity bill of Sh.Gaj Raj Singh

bearing account No.NGD-1768 has been corrected vide SC&AR No.59/830 and Rs.714.00 has been

adjusted.

After examination of the record in the case file the forum observed that the consumption of the

consumer is very low and bills have apparently been charged on MMC (monthly minimum charges) basis

wherein the per unit charges may works out to be higher. As per report of SDO the excess charges of

Rs.747.00 levied in the consumer account have already been adjusted. The Forum therefore decides to

dispose of the complaint in terms of reply filed by SDO. The case is closed. Both the parties to bear their own

costs.


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




July, 2017.

(K.D.Bansal) (Rajesh Sharma) Member Technical- Member/Accounts

Cum Chairman





Present:-




In the matter of complaint of Sh. Daya Nand Yadav, s/o Ram Dayal Yadav, Village Kaluwas,

Rewari regarding wrong billing.


V/s




Appearance:-






ORDER

Sh. Daya Nand Yadav, s/o Ram Dayal Yadav, Village Kaluwas, Rewari has got an electricity

connection bearing account No. PD1D-2894 under (OP) S/U Sub Divn Rewari hence this Forum has


The complainant has filed the present complaint stating that he has paid his electricity bill

through online mode which was not accounted for in his energy account and thereafter notice

regarding disconnection of supply has been issued by SDO which is wrong. The consumer requested

to get his grievance redressed.



case.

The proceedings held at Rewari on 21.07.17. The SDO was present but the complainant was

not present. The SDO submitted reply through Nodal Officer/CGRF, vide his memo No. 1575 dated

21.07.2017, stating therein that the bill of the consumer has already been rectified vide SC&AR

No.177/03 and an amount of Rs.4708.00 is adjusted. Online payment has also been adjusted in his

account in the month of 03/2017. The complainant was not present and respondent SDO informed the

Forum that the requisite action on the grievance of the consumer has already been taken and the

same stands redressed.

After examination of the records in the case file and hearing the SDO, the Forum decides to

dispose of the compliant as grievance of the consumer already redressed. The SDO is further directed

that the amount adjusted through sundry is reflected in the next bill of the consumer. The case is













July, 2017.





Case No. DH/CGRF-1807/2017 Date of Institution: 11.07.2017 Date of Hearing: 25.07.2017

Date of Order: 31.07.2017 Before the Forum for Redressal of Consumer Grievances, DHBVN. Present:-


In the matter of complaint of M/S Akshaya Patra Equip. Pvt Ltd Plot No.103 Sector-37, Pace City-I

Gurgaon regarding billing problem.


V/s

1. Xen/Op. City Division, DHBVN, Gurgaon. 2. SDO (OP) S/D DHBVN Kadipur


Appearance:-

For Complainant: 1. Representative. For the Respondent: 1.Nodal Officer, CGRF, DHBVN, Hisar

2. SDO (Op), DHBVN, Kadipur



ORDER

M/S Akshaya Patra Equipment Pvt. Ltd Plot No.103 Sector-37, Pace City-I Gurgaon has got an

electricity connection bearing account No. 9656460000 under SDO (OP) DHBVN Kadipur hence this Forum


The complainant has filed the present complaint through Sh. Narender Khanna, Director stating that

bill of Rs.349.00 only was raised by DHBVN on 13.04.2017 and as a sincere customer they approached the

Nigam for correction of the bill as it was much below their average monthly energy consumption. The next bill

for Rs.491218.00 was raised on 5.6.17 which was too high for their consumption and on enquiry it was told

that arrears for previous two years have been billed due to difference in change in energy unit measurement

from KWH to KVAH. They did not received any intimation regarding change in energy unit measurement during the period April-2015 to March-2017 and all the bills raised during this period by DHBVN were duly

paid. In the absence of any notice, they could not plan their energy consumption nor applied any corrective

measures i.e. installation of panel for control of power factor which would have substantially reduced the

KVAH units for the same electricity consumption. Consumer stated that the change in energy measurement

from KWH to KVAH is unjustified in absence of prior intimation and requested for withdrawal of the same.


parties were asked to appear before the Forum on 25.07.2017 at Gurgaon for hearing of the case.

The proceedings held at Gurgaon on 25.07.2017. The representative of consumer and respondent

SDO was present. The respondent SDO (O) S/D Kadipur filed written reply vide No.1681 dated 25.07.17

through Nodal Officer stating that consumer has been billed on KWH basis prior to 04/17 instead of KVAH

and as per instructions and tariff plan circulated vide SC NO.13/2015 dated 18.05.15 all bills of LT industrial

category irrespective of load should be billed on KVAH consumption. But due to introduction of new s/w

under RAPDRP system billing on KVAH basis has been omitted and now consumer account has been

overhauled on the basis of actual KVAH consumption and the difference on a/c of KWH & KVAH for the period 04/15 to 04/17 has been charged in the bill and the same was well explained to consumer while he

visited his office on 26.04.17. Thus bill raised on KVAH basis in the month of 04/17 is rightly payable as per

instructions of HERC and DHBVN. The SDO/OP Kadipur argued the case in line with the written statement.

The consumer’s representative however, refuted the arguments of respondent SDO and insisted that the bill raised in the month of 06/2017 is wrong as no prior intimation of change of unit of measurement has

been given by the DHBVN hence the amount is not chargeable and moreover, the Nigam cannot charge the

amount retrospectively for two years at this stage.

After hearing both the parties, the Forum directed the SDO to place actual records of KVAH readings

taken by the meter reader/Reading agency for the period 4/2015 to date before the Forum to ascertain if there is any omission in recording the KVAH readings. The respondent SDO has placed on records the

KVAH and AWH readings of the consumer for the period 2015 onwards through Nodal Officer, CGRF as

follows:

Month Sanctioned Load (In KWH)

KWH Reading KVAH Reading

04/2015 50.00 9769 18552 05/2015 50.00 10002 18919 06/2015 50.00 10231 19248 07/2015 50.00 10410 19750 08/2015 50.00 10594 20235 09/2015 50.00 10772 20575 10/2015 50.00 10957 20818 11/2015 50.00 11134 21043 12/2015 50.00 11295 21348 01/2016 50.00 11419 21696 02/2016 50.00 11581 22120 03/2016 50.00 11740 22423 04/2016 50.00 12088 22846 05/2016 50.00 12142 23313 06/2016 50.00 12262 24145 07/2016 50.00 12403 24359 08/2016 50.00 12571 24621 09/2016 50.00 12715 24849 10/2016 50.00 12863 25070 11/2016 50.00 13015 25307 12/2016 50.00 13154 25547 01/2017 50.00 13321 25840 02/2017 50.00 13449 26046 03/2017 50.00 13579 26254 04/2017 50.00 13713 26471 05/2017 50.00 13859 26684 06/2017 50.00 14009 26917 07/2017 50.00 14158 27115

.

After examining the records in the case file and hearing the parties the Forum observed that the

consumer is billed as per applicable instructions of the Nigam based on KVAH readings. The bill issued to the

consumer based on the normative KVAH reading in the first instance in April, 2017 for Rs. 15,62,264/- has

already been corrected to the tune of Rs. 5,43,582/- vide SC&AR No. 97/GD 105 on the basis of actual KVAH consumption (26471-18552=7919X20 MF) recorded by the meter installed at the consumer premises. The

Forum further observed that the complainant has not maintained the standard power factor of 0.9 which was

required to be maintained at his part. The complainant is not maintaining the power factor even after raising

the bills by DHBVN in the month of April, 2017 hence the plea taken by the complainant that he would have

maintained the power factor had prior intimation was given is not admitted. The Licensee is well within its

rights to recover the arrears for two years in terms of the provisions of section 56 of the Electricity Act-2003.

Thus the Forum finds no merit in the complaint and decides to dispose of the same in terms of the reply filed

by the respondent SDO. The case is closed. Both the parties to bear their own cost.







Given under our hands on this day of 31st

July, 2017.

(K.D.Bansal) (Rajesh K. Sharma) Member Technical- Member/Accounts

Cum Chairman





Present:-




In the matter of complaint of Sh. Sanjay s/o Sh. Ravi Dutt, Salahwas Road Railway Station

Kosli, (Rewari) regarding wrong billing.


V/s


2.SDO/Op. Sub-Division, DHBVN, Kosli.


Appearance:-



2.SDO/Op. Sub-Divn., DHBVN, Kosli.



ORDER

Sh. Sanjay s/o Sh. Ravi Dutt, Salahwas Road Railway Station Kosli, (Rewari) has got an

electricity connection bearing account No.NA-31-0081-L under (OP) Sub Divn Kosli hence this Forum


The complainant has filed the present complaint stating that his electricity bills are not issued

as per actual consumption recorded in the meter installed at his site. The complainant has enclosed

copies of 3 recent bills claiming that in all the cases the readings do not tally with the meter at site. The

complainant requested for correction of his bills and adjustment of excess amount already charged.



case.

The proceedings held at Rewari on 21.07.17. The SDO were present. The SDO

submitted reply through Nodal Officer/CGRF, vide his memo No. 2715 dated 19.07.2017, stating

therein that the consumer account has been checked and bills found issued wrongly due to

KWH/KVAH difference. Now the bill has been corrected after verifying the actual reading and a sum of

Rs.7446.00 shall be refunded to the consumer in the next bill. SDO placed on record satisfaction filed

by the complainant on 20.07.17 in the office of SDO (OP) Kosli.

After examination of the records in the case file and satisfaction of the complainant, the Forum

decides to dispose of the complaint in terms of the reply filed by the SDO vide letter dated 19.07.17

with the direction that the amount refundable to the complainant on account of wrong billing be

reflected in his next electricity bill.

The case is closed. Both the parties to bear the cost.












July, 2017.






Present:


In the matter of complaint of Smt. Bimla Devi w/o Sh.Vijender Singh, Village Bhakli, Tehsil Kosli, Distt

Rewari regarding wrong billing.


V/s 1 Xen/Op. Division, DHBVN, Kosli 2 SDO, (OP) Sub-Division-I, DHBVN, Kosli

…….Respondents

Appearance:-

For Complainant: Representative

For the Respondent 1 Nodal Officer/CGRF, DHBVN, Hisar 2 SDO, (OP) Sub-Division, DHBVN, Kosli



ORDER

Smt. Bimla Devi w/o Sh. Vijender Singh, Village Bhakli, Tehsil Kosli District Rewari has got an

electricity connection bearing account No. 66B-3125A under (OP) Sub Divn Kosli hence this Forum


The complainant has filed the present complaint stating that she had an electricity connection.

The meter was installed outside her house. She is a regular paying consumer of Nigam. On 3-

4/03/2017, her electricity meter stolen and she lodged the complaint to the Police vide FIR

No.1323604011700397. The new meter has not been installed by respondent Nigam uptil now. She

also lodged a complaint in CM window portal and in response to that, the Nigam has informed in the

month of May-2017 that during cross checking 2189 units were found unbilled in her account and

meter can be installed after payment of arrears of electricity bills. The consumer stated that no record

of cross checking of units shown to her and requested for installation of new meter to avoid hardship

besides taking action against the billing agency.



case.

The proceedings held at Rewari on 21.07.17. The SDO and representation of complainant

were present. The SDO submitted reply through Nodal Officer/CGRF, vide his memo No. 2716 dated

19.07.2017, stating therein that consumer approached Sub Divn with a report of meter theft. A large

number of such cases received in his office with intentional theft of meters due to accumulation of

reading. As per Nigam’s instructions, energy meter is Nigam property and in case of theft the Nigam is

to lodge FIR with full facts and site verification. In this case, the consumer has not given any compliant

regarding missing of meter and directly gave application with zero FIR at her personal level. Before the

incidence of theft, the meter at consumer premises was checked by Sh. Sunil Lineman and found the

reading as 4342 whereas the bills have been issued upto 1946 units till the month of Jan.2017 so this

a case of blockage of reading. A notice was served to the consumer for payment of difference of

reading vide memo No.862 dated 20.02.17, the consumer has not deposited the amount till date and

approached the various Forums in this matter. On 17.07.17, the nominated Chairperson Sh. Sardar

Singh Bhalla came to his office and called the consumer regarding the issue. The consumer came to

his office and agreed that she will pay for the blocked units in case the units are bifurcated from the

date of connection. The SDO also placed on record a copy of meter reading verification report dated

22.02.2017.

A copy of reply filed by SDO was handed over to the representative of consumer who did not

agree with the reply of SDO and insisted that her meter was genuinely stolen and case of blockage of

reading is not at all made out against her.

After examination of the records in the case file and hearing both the parties the Forum is of

the opinion that this is a case of blockage of reading at the end of consumer. The Forum agrees with

the version of SDO in this regard. The Forum therefore decides to dispose of the complaint in terms of

reply filed by SDO with the direction that :-

1. The accumulated reading may be distributed over a period from date of connection to

Jan.2017 for the purpose of billing and consumer may be charged accordingly.

2. The action against meter reading agency for causing blockage of units may be taken by the

respondent Nigam in terms of applicable penal provision of the agreement with the Agency.

The case is closed. Both the parties to bear the cost.












July, 2017.


FORUM FOR REDRESSAL OF CONSUMER GRIEVANCES DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM D-BLOCK, Ground Floor, Vidyut Sadan, Vidyut Nagar, Hisar-125 005 Telephone No. 01662-223081 (website: www.dhbvn.com) (e-mail ID: [email protected]) ___________________________________________________________ Case No. DH/CGRF-1755/2017 Date of Institution: 17.05.2017 Date of Hearing: 07.06.2017, 11.07.2017 & 11.08.2017

Date of Order: 11/08/2017 Before the Forum for Redressal of Consumer Grievances, DHBVN.

Present:-


In the matter of complaint of Sh. Narender S/o Sh. Bhomal Ram, V&P.O. Ramayan,

Tehsil, Hansi, Distt., Hisar regarding Low Voltage and strengthening of lines.


V/s 1. XEN/Op. Division, DHBVN, Hansi. 2.JE, Sub-Officer, DHBVN, Umra. …………….Respondents

Appearance:-

For Complainant: 1.Present For the Respondent: 1.Nodal Officer, CGRF, DHBVN, Hisar.

2.JE Incharge of sub-office, DHBVN, Umra.

http://www.dhbvn.com/

mailto:[email protected]

ORDER Sh. Narender S/o Sh. Bhomal Ram, V&P.O. Ramayan, Tehsil, Hansi, Distt., Hisar has

got an electricity connection bearing A/C No. UF53-2038-A (Old A/C No. R-218) under Sub-

office, DHBVN, Umra, hence this Forum has jurisdiction to hear the complaint.


1. The applicant is user of tube well electricity connection which is installed in the name of

his father in their field situated at Village Ramayan. The applicant is regularly paying the

bills of electricity and is law abiding person.

2. The said connection is on 25 KVA Transformer but the load on the said T/F has been

increased to 50 KVA comprised of five AP connections bearing 5 KW each and 10

domestic connections. Due to heavy load recently some fluctuation occurred in the T/F

and due to which the fields of the applicant caught fire and the applicant suffered loss of

his crops.

3. The applicant has been regularly requesting the concerned officials of the Nigam to

either increase the load of said T/F or segregate the DS connection from the said AP T/F

but they are not paying any heed to the request of the applicant.

4. It is settled law and according to sale circular, guidelines and regulations of the Nigam,

no domestic connection can be given on AP line but the Nigam has violated their own

instructions and guidelines and provided the DS connections from the above said T/F.

Besides this the electricity wire are very low lying approximately at the height of 6 feet

along with the road leading to Depal from Ramayan. The applicant has genuine

apprehension of danger to the life and property of the passersby as well as for the

applicant.

It is, therefore, requested either to enhance/increase the capacity of the said T/F or

segregate/shift the DS connections from the above said T/F and also to mend the wire to avoid

any accident. Any other relief to which the applicant is found entitled be also granted in his

favour.


and both the parties were asked to appear before the Forum on 07.06.2017 at Hisar for hearing

of the case. The proceedings held at Hisar on 07.06.2017. The consumer and the representative of

sub-office were present. The representative of sub-office stated that due to late receipt of

complaint, his office could not prepare the reply in time. The sub-office representative admitted

before the Forum that there exist some domestic connections from the T/F installed on AP line

and notices to the concerned consumers has been issued for disconnection of the same. The

sub-office representative asked for next date for filing the detail reply in the matter. Request

allowed with the direction to file the status of action taken on all the three points raised by the

consumer in his complaint i.e. voltage level on the tube well of complainant, removal of un-

authorized domestic connections and strengthening of loose wires.

Further proceedings held at Hisar on 11.07.17, the complainant was not present. JE

incharge of Umra Sub Office appeared before Forum and filed reply through Nodal Office vide

No.2398 dated 10..07.2017 stating that deposit estimate under MPLAD scheme for providing

domestic connection to Dhani Sube Singh has been prepared/approved and a reference has

been made to ADC office vide memo No.1470 dated 07.09.16 for providing funds under

MPLAD. As and when the funds are received, a new transformer for domestic supply shall be

installed and grievance of the complainant shall be redressed.

After perusal of records and hearing the parties, the Forum observed that the earlier the

sub office informed the Forum that the problem of low voltage to the complainant’s premises is

attributable to unauthorized shifting of domestic connection from domestic area of village to

Dhani (field area) and notices for removal of these unauthorized connections have been issued

by the sub office. The reply filed by the sub office during hearing held on 11.07.17 is entirely

different and no status regarding action taken on unauthorized shifting and tightening of loose

wires as per proceedings held on 07.06.2017 has been filed.

The JE incharge of Umra sub office requested for adjournment of the case for filing

detailed revised reply in the matter on the next date. The request allowed with the direction to

file final action taken report on or before next date failing which the case shall be proceeded and

decided as per available records before this Forum.

The proceeding of the case held at Hisar on 11.08.2017. The complainant and

respondent JE Incharge of Umra S/Office were present. The respondent filed revised reply

through Nodal Officer vide No.2468 dated 8.8.2017 informing therein that site of connection

visited with Sh. Karam Bir Singh JE, staff and police force for removing the unauthorized

connections connected with the T/F (TWC of Sh. Narender Singh) on 5.8.2017. However, the

connections could not be disconnected due to production of Stay Order by the affected

consumers of the village. A copy of Orders of the Hon’ble ACJ Hansi dated 29.7.2017 also been

produced alongwith the written statement.

After perusal of the records of the case file and hearing the parties the Forum observed

that :-

1. The respondent office kept his stand changing before the Forum in the reply filed

from time to time. No efforts have been made by the respondent with regard to

tightening of loose wires at site as per earlier orders of the Forum.

2. No action was taken regarding removal of unauthorized connections during the

period 30.05.2017 to 29.07.2017 till grant of stay by the court on 29/07/2017.

Keeping in view the above facts and the with a view to redress the original grievance

of the complainant regarding low voltage at his tubewell on account of unauthorized connections

through the T/F, the Forum decides that the capacity of the transformer installed at the tubewell

of complainant may be augmented as per load and expenditure involved in the augmentation be

recovered from the complaint centre staff, JE incharge of the feeder and office incharge after

conducting detailed enquiry in the matter as the unauthorized connections cannot be removed

due to stay granted by the court. Case is closed. Both the parties to bear their own cost.






appeal before the appropriate authority 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



Given under our hands on this day of 11th August, 2017.



DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM D-BLOCK, Ground Floor, Vidyut Sadan, Vidyut Nagar, Hisar-125 005 Telephone No. 01662-223081 (website: www.dhbvn.com) (e-mail ID: [email protected]) ___________________________________________________________ Case No. DH/CGRF-1777/2017 Date of Institution: 15.06.2017 Date of Hearing: 28.06.2017, 25.07.17&30.08.17 Date of Order: 01.09.2017 Before the Forum for Redressal of Consumer Grievances, DHBVN. Present:-


Manu Bishnoi, Independent Member.

In the matter of complaint of M/s Nextra Teleservices Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 17, 18, Udyog Vihar,

Phase-1, Gurugram regarding billing problem.


V/s


2. SDO/CCC Maruti Indl Area Sub-Division, DHBVN, Gurugram.



Representative

For the Respondent 1 SDO (Op) CCC Maruti Indl. Area Sub-Divn 2 Nodal Officer/CGRF, DHBVN, Hisar 3 SDO M&P , DHBVN, Gurgaon



ORDER

M/s Nextra Teleservices Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 17, 18, Udyog Vihar, Phase-1, Gurugram

have got an electricity connection bearing A/C No. 5925060000 under SDO/CCC Maruti Indl.

Area Sub-Division, DHBVN, Gurugram, hence this Forum has jurisdiction to hear the complaint.

The complainant has filed the present complaint stating therein that the SDO, Maruti

Industrial Area Sub-Division, DHBVN, Sector-18, Gurgaon has written letter vide memo No.

2923 dated 04.01.2017 to Nextra Teleservices Pvt. Ltd. situated at Plot No. 17&18,Udyog Vihar,

Phase-1, Gurgaon for short assessment amounting to Rs.12,21,886/- A/C No. ALS-790. It is

their humble request to look into the matter and hear the submissions of the complaint as the

complainant is not liable to pay the aforesaid amount assessed by the authority concerned. The

assessing authority has wrongly concluded that the meter was running slow and therefore the

assessee was liable to pay the aforesaid amount. It is submitted that assuming without

admitting that the meter was running slow as alleged, the same cannot be attributed to the

complainant as it was the duty of DHBVN to regularly check the meter and carry out rectification

if required and not make the complainant pay for the wrong committed by the said authority.

The consumer complaint Form with the supporting documents attached for kind perusal and

favourable consideration. Till such time, it is prayed that the DHBVN be restrained from making

any demands for payment of the aforesaid amount and be further restrained from disconnecting

electricity supply at Nextra Teleservices Pvt. Ltd. at Plot No. 17&18, Udyog Vihar, Phase-1,

Gurgaon.





respondent SDO were present. The SDO submitted written reply through Nodal Officer/CGRF,

vide his memo No. 4834 dated 27.06.2017 stating therein that the premises of the consumer

was visited by M&P team vide MT-1 No. 36/1045 dated 11.11.2016 and found meter running

slow by 33.33% due to Y phase current zero on the analysis of tamper data, it has been

observed that meter was running slow by 33.33% from the date 12.03.2016 at KWH reading

216630 on the date of set right i.e. 11.11.2016 at KWH reading 281411 & KVAH reading

296111. On the basis of that checking report, Rs.12,21,886/- charged on account of short

assessment and a notice was serviced by his office vide memo No. 2923 dated 04.01.2017 to

deposit the short assessment amount of Rs.12,21,886/-.

A copy of the reply was handed over to the representative to the complainant for perusal

and argue the case. The complainant argued that their bills over a period of time are consistent;

hence there cannot be any slowness of the meter as concluded by the concerned authorities.

The complainant argued that no tamper data of the meter which forms the basis of this demand

has been given to them despite making specific request to the concerned SDO and M&P wing.

The complainant informed the Forum that he was made to pay the present demand under

duress and after threatening to disconnect the electricity supply by the Licensee.

After hearing both the parties the Forum asked the representative of the sub division to

place on records the copies of the following documents and also provide copies of the same to

the complainant:

1. Tamper data of the meter which forms the basis of the present demand.

2. M&P checking report.

3. MDI recorded for the period under dispute i.e. 1/2015 to date.

The above data was not readily available nor placed on the records till the hearings

concluded at Gurgaon. The Forum therefore decides to adjourn the case for next date with the

direction to the respondent SDO to provide the relevant records to the Forum as well as the

complainant. The complainant to file the rejoinder if any based on the fresh records within a

week’s time. The consumer needs to be informed accordingly by the Nodal Officer.

The proceedings held at Gurgaon on 25.07.17. Representative of both the complainant

and respondent SDO were present. The copies of the documents asked for by the Forum in its

earlier hearing were placed on record by the respondent SDO. The documents were shared

with the representative of complainant who stated that the comments on rejoinder on new

documents placed on record now shall be filed within two days. However, no comments on

rejoinder filed.

The Forum after perusal of records observed that the Licensee has not corroborated the

statement of M&P with the tamper data. The Forum therefore directs the Licensee to properly

corroborate the tamper data with the conclusion drawn by M&P in its letter dated 6.12.16

regarding slowness of the meter and zero current in Y phase for the particular period. It is

further directed that evidence of the M&P wing may also be ensured at the next date of hearing.

The case is adjourned and now listed for hearing at Gurgaon on 29.8.17.

Final opportunity is given to complainant and Licensee to produced relevant

records/rejoinder and arrange for evidence failing which the case shall be decided based on the

available records.

The proceedings held at Gurgaon on 30.08.2017. The complainant, respondent SDO

and SDO/M&P Gurgaon alongwith Nodal Officer CGRF were present. SDO M&P produced

before the Forum the segregated tampered data of the meter installed at the premises of the

consumer. The data suggests that the Y-phase of CT was not continuously disconnected but

kept connected/disconnected at different intervals which was agreed to by both the parties

during arguments. While admitting the fact of intermittent connection and disconnection in Y-

phase as established from the tampered data, the SDO (OP) raised the issue that the charging

to the consumer on a/c of slowness in such a scenario is difficult at his level. The complainant

was ready to pay for the slowness on actual basis during which the Y-phase remained

disconnected instead of charging him @ 33% slowness for the entire period.

After hearing both the parties the Forum decides that the consumer cannot be burdened

for the entire period which includes connected period also as per analysis of tampered data.

The complaint is therefore, disposes of with the direction to Licensee to charge the consumer

for the actual period during which the Y-phase of CT remained disconnected instead of charging

@ 33% slowness in Y phase for entire period after detailed calculations. The complaint is

allowed to this extent. The case is closed. Both the parties to bear their own cost.











Given under our hands on this day of Ist. September 2017.


FORUM FOR REDRESSAL OF CONSUMER GRIEVANCES DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM D-BLOCK, Ground Floor, Vidyut Sadan, Vidyut Nagar, Hisar-125 005 Telephone No. 01662-223081 (website: www.dhbvn.com) (e-mail ID: [email protected]) ___________________________________________________________ Case No. DH/CGRF-1780/2017 Date of Institution: 16.06.2017 Date of Hearing: 07.07.2017 & 8.8.2017 Date of Order : 9.8.2017


Present:-




In the matter of complaint of M/S Inuds Tower Ltd. Shop No.4, Shopping Centre

Faridabad through Sh. Deepak Kumar, Energy Controller in the matter of excess

charging on account of wrong application of multiplying factor.


V/s

1. Xen/Op. DHBVN, Old Faridabad. 2.SDO/Op. Mathura Road DHBVN, Faridabad.


Appearance:-

For Complainant: 1.Representative. For the Respondent: 1.None from Nodal Officer, CGRF, DHBVN,

2. SDO/Op. Mathura Road DHBVN, Faridabad.

.



ORDER

M/S Inuds Tower Ltd. Shop No.4, Shopping Centre Faridabad has got an electricity

connection bearing A/C No. 3940450000 under SDO/Op. Mathura Road DHBVN, Faridabad, hence this Forum has jurisdiction to hear the complaint.

The complainant has filed the present complaint (through Sh. Deepak Kumar, Energy Controller) stating therein that:

(1) Excess billing made against account No. 3940450000 in the name of Indus Tower.

(2) They received the accumulated bill of Rs.2554650.00 for the period March-2014 to March-

2017 for which load details/justification have been given by the Licensee (3) Considering the 30.0 KW load at their premises, the bill of Rs/25.54 lacs is on higher side.

The complainant requested this Forum that the excess charges levied in their account be

withdrawn by correcting the bill as per actual consumption.


both the parties were asked to appear before the Forum on 07.07.2017 at Faridabad for hearing of the case.

The proceedings held at Faridabad on 07.07.2017. The representative of the consumer Sh.

Deepak Kumar and respondent SDO were present. The SDO filed written reply through Nodal

Officer vide his No.1166 dated 07.07.17 stating that the billing in the consumer account has been done as per actual consumption and there is no excess billing. As per billing from 21.03.14 to

02.02.17, revised bill by the system has been prepared. All the details have been shown and multiplying factor has been applied correctly as six. Sanctioned load of the consumer is 12.0 kw but

actual connected load was found much more i.e. 25.08-26.0 kw in M&P checking. A copy of the M&P checking report and detailed calculations of charging of Rs.25.54 lacs has also been placed on record by respondent SDO.

The written submissions of the SDO were filed after concluding the hearing at Faridabad.

The Forum therefore, decides that the reply & other documents filed by the respondent SDO may be

shared with the complainant. The case is adjourned to next date i.e. 08.08.2017. The Nodal Officer is to ensure that the written submission of SDO in the case is provided to the complainant for arguing the case on the next date accordingly.

The proceedings of case were held at Faridabad on 8.8.2017. The representative of complainant and respondent SDO were present. The representative of complainant was asked by the Forum to file rejoinder if any, on the reply of respondent SDO in the matter. The complainant

however, did not file any written rejoinder. The complainant though agreed to the version of the SDO that the meter working is OK and the consumption shown in the bills tallies with the readings of the

meter at site he, however, insisted that the consumption recorded in a particular period is not

commensurate with the corresponding or past consumption and there is some error in preparation of the bills for this period. No document/argument on the facts in support of the claim were produced

before the Forum. The respondent SDO reiterated his reply and argued that there is no dispute. The meter is working OK and bills have been raised as per actual consumption recorded at site and the

complaint is liable to be rejected.

After going through the records in the case file and hearing both the parties, the Forum finds

that there is no merit in the complaint as the bills have been prepared as per actual consumption and meter working also declared OK by the M&P wing of the Licensee. Therefore, the complaint is disposed of in terms of reply of SDO. The 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 competent authority 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



File be consigned to record. Given under our hands on this day of 9th August 2017.




Present:-




In the matter of complaint of M/S Hutchison Essar FCA-536 Block-C Faridabad,

account No. 3362640000 through Sh. Deepak Kumar, energy controller in the matter of

excess charging in the bill.


V/s

1. Xen/Op. DHBVN, Old Faridabad. 2.SDO/Op. Sub Divn.No.4, DHBVN, Faridabad.


Appearance:-

For Complainant: 1.Representative. For the Respondent: 1.None from Nodal Officer, CGRF, Hisar

2.Representative of SDO/Op. Sub Divn.No.4, DHBVN, Faridabad.



ORDER

M/S Hutchison Essar FCA-536 Block-C Faridabad, has got an electricity connection

bearing A/C No. 3362640000 hence this Forum has jurisdiction to hear the complaint.


Controller) stating therein that excess charging amounting to Rs.42031.00 was made in their

account for the month of January 2017 which they have paid under protest. The complainant

requested this Forum that the excess charges levied in their account be withdrawn.




The proceedings held at Faridabad on 07.07.2017. The representative of the consumer,

Sh. Deepak Kumar and respondent SDO were present. The SDO filed written statement vide

No.1389 dated 07.07.2017 through Nodal Officer stating that a list of unmatched cheques was

received from the office of FA/HQ DHBVN through XEN old Faridabad and based on these

details the amount of Rs.42031.00 was debited to the consumer account vide SC&AR

No.2632/R206 being unmatched item which was deposited by the complainant against energy

bill vide Cheque No.32991 dated 05.03.2012 as appeared in the list. A copy of reply was

handed over to the complainant who was not satisfied and decided to argue the case. The

complainant argued that he made the payment through on-line mode and shown a copy of

screen shot.

The Forum after hearing both the parties advised the complainant to produce a proper

document in support of his claim of deposit of the amount i.e. copy of bank statement from

where the amount of Rs.42031.00 has been debited so as to decide the complaint accordingly

on merits.

The proceedings of the case held at Faridabad on 8.8.2017. The representative of

complainant and Comml. Asstt. of (OP) S/D No.4 Faridabad was present. The representative of

complainant was asked to produce the copy of bank statement from which the amount in

dispute Rs.42031.00 was debited in support of his claim. The representative of complainant

however, expressed his inability to produce the bank statement at this stage and insisted that

the amount has been charged twice by the respondent Nigam. The representative of S/Divn.

reiterated his earlier reply already on record.

After going through the record in the case file and hearing both the parties, the Forum

observed that the complainant has not proved that the amount in dispute has been charged

/realized twice as such finds no merit in the complaint and decides to dispose of the same in

terms of reply of SDO. The 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



Given under our hands on this day of 9th August 2017.




Case No. DH/CGRF-1797A/2017 Date of Institution:11.07.2017 Date of Hearing: 14.07.17 & 16.08.2017 Date of Order: 16.08.2017



In the matter of complaint of Sub Divisional Engineer, Haryana Urban Development

Authority (HUDA) Sirsa regarding wrong billing.


V/s

1 Xen/Op. Division, DHBVN, Sirsa 2 SDO (OP) City Sub-Division, DHBVN, Sirsa

…….Respondents


SDE HUDA Sirsa

For the Respondent 1 Nodal Officer/CGRF, DHBVN, Hisar 2 Comml. Asstt of SDO (OP)City DHBVN Sirsa



ORDER

Sub Divisional Engineer, Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) Sirsa has got

two electricity connections bearing A/C Nos. 1709570000 (TT-65-0949) & 11312060 (TT65-

0226) under SDO/Op. City Sub-Division, DHBVN, Sirsa, hence this Forum has jurisdiction to

hear the complaint.

The complainant has filed the present complaint (through SDE HUDA Sirsa) stating

therein that energy bills of both his connections are being raised by the respondent Nigam on

average basis instead of actual consumption recorded by the energy meters installed at site

resulting into excess charging in the bills every time. The complainant stated that he earlier

approached the Sub Divn. many times but the bills have not been corrected nor excess amount

earlier charged refunded. The complainant requested this Forum to get the energy bills correct

and excess charges levied by the Nigam refunded.



of the case.

The proceedings of the case held at Sirsa on 14.07.17. The respondent SDO and

complainant were present. The complainant argued his case in line with the written submission

and insisted that their bills are being raised on average basis in place of actual reading in the

meter at site causing inflated bill to which they are unable to pay considering the financial

position of the department. The complainant stated that he approached the concerned offices

several times in the past but no action on his grievance has been taken and bills continued to be

raised on average basis causing financial hardship to their department (HUDA) and

accumulation of disputed amount.

The Respondent SDO was present in person and informed that the complaint has been

received in his office only on the day of hearing hence detailed written submission could not be

prepared. The SDO during oral submissions however, refuted the contents of the complainant

and argued that bills to the HUDA have been raised on actual basis. He informed that previously

the bills have been prepared on average basis for some time though the meter was ok and

recording the consumption. Thus the account was overhauled as per audit half margin which is

correct. The SDO requested for time to file the written submission after consulting the record.

The complainant has raised no objection on seeking of time by the respondent SDO for filing

written submissions.

The request for adjourning the case made by SDO City Sub Division DHBVN Sirsa has

been allowed. The case is adjourned and now listed for hearing at Sirsa on 16.08.2017. Both

the parties to file written statement and rejoinder within a week’s time.

Proceedings of case held at Sirsa on 16.08.17. SDE, HUDA Sirsa and Comml. Asstt

from SDO (Op) City Sirsa were present. The complainant presented the case and brought out

the following additional facts before the Forum:-

1. The meter installed at their premises got damaged and not replaced by the

respondent Nigam in spite making written requests and average billing continued to

he made which was much higher than the actual consumptions. The complainant

argued that the it was the duty of the Nigam to replace the meter immediately after it

became defective and by non replacing the meter their department was put to

unnecessary hardship and financial loss on account of inflated bills on average basis

for a long time.

2. The average charged is on higher side and even for the period when the meter

already replaced and working correctly i.e.11/2014.

3. Excess amount debited in their account without any proper details.

The Sub Divn. representative placed on record information/charging made in the

account of consumer as required by this Forum during earlier hearing held on 14.07.2017. The

Sub Divn representative during oral submission justified the charging on the ground that the

meter of consumer remained defective during the period and he was charged for this period on

average basis as per applicable instructions and the consumer is liable to pay the legitimate

charges of the Nigam.

After examination of record and hearing both the parties, the Forum finds that this is

a case of billing on average basis during the period the meter of consumer remained defective.

The Forum however, finds some merits in the arguments put forth by the complainant.

It is decided that:

1. The account No. TT-45/949 is to be overhauled only for the period 12/2013 to

10/2014 only on the basis of the consumption recorded during the period

12/2014 to 10/2015 as the meter was actually replaced during 10-11/2014.

2. The consumption of 12/2014 taken for average charging of 12/2013 is in fact

consumption recorded during two months period i.e. 11& 12/2014. This may be

suitably apportioned for one month only.

3. Average amount charged for the month of 11/2014 is not chargeable as the

meter was working correctly during this period.

4. The amount of Rs.96921.00 reported to be charged in the account

No.1709570000 (old account No.TT-45/949) actually pertains to account another

No.TT-45/320 NDS as per details provided by the sub division as such this

amount may be withdrawn alongwith surcharged from account No. TT-45/949

and debited to respective account after verification of the facts.

No merits found in the complaint pertaining to the account No. TT-45/226 hence

no relief is granted for this account. With these directions, the case is closed. Both the




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.


appeal before the competent authority 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


Electricity Ombudsman and Consumer Advocacy) Regulations-2016.






Case No. DH/CGRF-1800/2017 Date of Institution: 13.07.2017 Date of Hearing: 18.07.2017 & 22.08.2017 Date of Order : 23.08.2017



In the matter of complaint of M/S Indus Tower Ltd (through Sh. M.S.Chauhan) regarding excess

charging in the bills.


V/s

1 XEN (OP) DHBVN, Ch. Dadri 2 SDO (OP) Sub Divn, DHBVN, Atela Kalan.

…….Respondents


Present

For the Respondent 1 SDO (OP) DHBVN, Atela Kalan 2 Nodal Officer/CGRF, DHBVN, Hisar



ORDER

M/S Indus Tower Ltd. has got an electricity connection bearing A/C No. B-36-MH-21-0009K under Sub-Divn, DHBVN, Atela Kalan, hence this Forum has jurisdiction to hear the complaint.

The complainant has filed the present complaint through Sh. M.S.Chauhan, stating therein that

1. Their premises were checked on 21.11.13 and allegation of theft of energy was made vide LL-1 No.21/2092. The computation of assessment made at the load of 11.640 kw in place of actual load

of 4.0 kw at site. A sum of Rs.108902.00 on account of assessment and Rs.20000.00 on a/c of compounding was charged and deposited vide RO- 4 No.198-199/18115 on dated 27.11.13.

2. The Internal audit department framed half margin No.23/137 dated 08.04.15 for making fresh

assessment of Rs.388019.00 which was unnecessary and not accepted and charged by SDO. The Internal audit again framed half margin No.52/032 dated 23.06.16 and pointed out interest Rs.

87304.00 @ 18%. The interest proposal is total unnecessary and not chargeable. The amount has been debited in the account without any notice to the consumer and any notice of assessment under

section 126 or 135 of Elecy. Act 2003 or Show cause notice under section 6.10.4 of HERC

regulation No.29/2014.

3. The issue of theft of energy was closed and settled on 27.11.13 by depositing Rs.128903.00. Thereafter no additional demand/notice was received hence debiting of amount Rs.475323.00 in the

month of 11/2016 is against the principal of law and instructions of the Nigam. 4. The meter installed while releasing the connection was having MF of 6. This was not advised to the

billing agency and bills were prepared without MF. The consumer made payment of Rs.56719.00 from DOC to 08/2016. The Internal audit has framed half margin No.52/034 and made assessment

of Rs.147237.00 on this account without any notice or giving opportunity of hearing. 5. They have representation to the SDO but no action has been taken. The application prayed for

withdrawal of assessment of Rs.388019.00 alongwith interest of Rs.87034.00 and overhauling of

amount on account of wrong charging of MF by Audit. The complaint was forwarding to the Nodal Officer for filing reply of the Nigam and both the parties

were asked to appear before the Forum at Bhiwani on 18.07.17 for hearing of the case. The proceedings of case held at Bhiwani on 18.07.17. The complainant was not present. The SDO

(OP) Atela Kalan alongwith Nodal Officer was present. The SDO requested for another date in the case for filing the detailed reply after consulting relevant records of the case. The complainant was also not present

and being first date of hearing, request of SDO allowed and case adjourned for next date. The proceedings of the case held on 22.8.17 at Bhiwani. The complainant and respondent SDO

were present. The respondent SDO filed detailed written statement vide No.830 dated 27.07.2017 stating

that the premises of the tower was checked by Vigilance Team Rewari on 21.11.2013 before release of connection. The LL1 framed and load detected 11.640 KW. An amount of Rs.423276.00 was charged. The

representative of the tower objected before higher authority regarding the loading capacity of UPS cells. The matter discussed with higher authorities and as per available record, the higher authorities advised to

then SDO to impose penalty as per actual load. The revised assessment worked out to Rs.128209.00 on

actual load basis and deposited by Tower Co. vide RO 4 No.198-199/18115 dated 27.11.2013. Thereafter,

regular NDS connection was applied for on 19.02.2014 with load of 15.0 KW and connection was released on 29.03.15 vide SCO No.45/1451 with LT CT meter and MF-6.

The Internal audit party reviewed the matter and framed half margin No.37/123 dated 8.4.15 with the remarks that LL1 No.21/209 dated 21.11.13 has been assessed on lesser side in terms of SC 43/2007 by

reducing the load from 11.64 KW to 4.0 KW without any valid reason hence amount of Rs.388019.00 is

chargeable and the half margin charged vide SC&AR No.98/48 which remained un-posted.

During subsequent visit the Audit party prepared the half margin No.32/52 dated 23.06.2016 for

interest amounting to Rs.87304.00 @ 18% for 15 months on the original chargeable amount of

Rs.388019.00 which remained unposted. The then SDO remarked on the half margin as ‘not

chargeable’. As & when the matter come to the notice the amount was charged to the consumer

account vide SC&AR No.133/48. The third half margin No.34/52 has been framed for MF of the consumer as per CT meter ratio as

well as M&P checking report No.66/98 and the difference of consumption has been charged for Rs.147237.00 vide SC&AR No.135/48.

A copy of reply filed by SDO was provided to complainant on which rejoinder dated 21.08.17 filed by

the complainant. No new facts relating to the case have been brought out and the contents of original

complaint reiterated w.r.t. defense reply stressing for withdrawal of the amount charged on the grounds already stated in the original plaint as well as rejoinder.

Both the parties argued their case in line with the written submissions. The complainant during

arguments admitted that this is a case of theft of energy but insisted for withdrawal of assessment pointed

out by the audit. In addition the complainant argued for withdrawal of excess amount charged on account of

difference of MF from DOC to 08/2016. After examination of the records and hearing the parties, The Forum observed that the complainant

has raised following two issues for adjudication before this Forum:- 1. Withdrawal of amount pointed out by Internal audit on account of less charging of assessed

amount in theft case originally detected by the Vigilance wing of the Licensee. The incidence of the theft has been admitted by the complainant.

2. Withdrawal of the excess amount charged on account of difference of MF.

After considering the relevant facts, the Forum decides that the point raised at Sr.No.1 above pertains to theft of electricity, as also agreed by the complainant hence the forum decides not to interfere and pass any order on the issue on merits on jurisdictional ground as per clause No. 2.39 of HERC

regulation dated 29.07.2016. Regarding the issue at Sr.No.2 i.e. excess charging on account of difference of MF the Forum finds merits in the argument of the complainant and directs the respondent SDO to revise

the charging as per facts and records brought out by the complainant in his plaint within a period of 30 days. 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.


the appropriate authority 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-

2016.




FORUM FOR REDRESSAL OF CONSUMER GRIEVANCES DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM D-BLOCK, Ground Floor, Vidyut Sadan, Vidyut Nagar, Hisar-125 005 Telephone No. 01662-223081 (website: www.dhbvn.com) (e-mail ID: [email protected]) ___________________________________________________________ Case No. DH/CGRF-1801/2017 Date of Institution: 13.07.2017 Date of Hearing: 25.07.2017 & 30.08.17 Date of Order : 01.09.2017 Before the Forum for Redressal of Consumer Grievances, DHBVN. Present:-


Manu Bishnoi, Independent Member.

In the matter of complaint of M/S Indus Tower Ltd. Site at Rewari Road Tauru Distt Mewat

through Sh. M.S.Chauhan SCO 137, FF, Sector-13 UE Karnal regarding billing problem.


V/s

1. Xen/Op. Division, DHBVN, Sohna. 2. SDO (OP) S/D DHBVN Tauru


Appearance:-

For Complainant: 1.Reprsentive . For the Respondent: 1.Nodal Officer, CGRF, DHBVN, Hisar

2. SDO (Op) Tauru



ORDER

M/S Indus Tower Ltd., Site at Rewari Road, Tauru Distt Mewat has got an electricity

connection bearing account No. TC-61/2695(old account no.C-2372) under SDO (OP) DHBVN

Tauru hence this Forum has jurisdiction to hear the complaint.

The complainant has filed the present complaint (through Sh.M.S Chauhan) stating that the

connection was released on 3.5.2013 with LT CT meter of MF-6. The meter was commissioned by

M&P after checking accuracy and sealing of meter and metering equipments. However, no advice of

release of connection given in time to computer cell for generation of bill. The Connection was checked on 5.6.14 vide LL-1 No.18/194 and all installations found to be OK and it was advised to

make bill upto date as per Nigam instructions. The recorded consumption from 05/13 to 06/14 was

21486 units(3582-1x6), first bill was issued on 20.06.14 for the consumption of 21486 units and duly

paid on 16.7.14 after regularizing the billing in 06/2014. The account no. of connection was changed

from C-2372 to TC-61/2695 on 14.8.14 at the reading of 4180x6= 25080 and the audit wing without

verifying the facts treated the connection as illegal on the basis of LL-1 dated 5.6.14 and half margin

no. 3 dated 2.7.15 was debited in their account for assessment of Rs.1126650.00 and compounding

of Rs.75000.00 which is totally unjustified.

No notice of assessment under Section 135 of Electricity Act was issued before charging of

half margin. Later on a notice was shown to be issued on 8.10.15 whereas the half margin already

charged in 07/2015 thus the charging is illegal and unjustified. They approached XEN and SDO but

the grievance was not heard. Consumer requested for withdrawal of assessment of

Rs.1126650.00+Rs.75000.00 as compounding alongwith surcharge from the date of debit to the date of its actual withdrawal.


both the parties were asked to appear before the Forum on 25.07.2017 at Gurgaon for hearing of the

case.

The proceedings held at Gurgaon on 25.07.2017. The representative of consumer and

Comml. Asstt of the Sub Divn. were present. No detailed written statement was filed from SDO (OP)

S/D Tauru. Photo copies of certain documents pertaining to account no. C-2372 were placed on

record vide memo NO.619 dated 24.7.17 which could not be linked properly with the points raised by

the complainant in the present complaint. Further the representative of complainant could not

present the case in proper perspective nor the representative of S/D was able to explain the

charging made in the consumer a/c and other points raised in the complaint.

The Forum took a serious note of attending the complaints by Sub Divn. in casual manner

and also non presentment of the complaint from the complainant’s side. The Forum also noted that

the papers submitted by respondent SDO are not scrutinized by Nodal Officer before placing on

records of the Forum.

The case is adjourned to the next hearing with the direction to the SDO (OP) Tauru and the

complainant to be present at the time of next hearing alongwith all relevant records. The Nodal

Officer is to ensure proper presentation of the case by the respondent on next date of hearing.

The parties to be informed accordingly.

The proceedings held at Gurgaon on 30.08.17. The respondent SDO and complainant were

present. The SDO filed written statement vide No.1759 dated 29.08.2017 stating therein that the connection was released on 3.5.2013 but at the time of connection no advice was sent and after

checking of premises vide LL1 No.18/194 dated 5.6.14, the advice was sent to computer cell in the

month of 8/2014 and accordingly billing of consumer started. The recorded consumption from 5/13 to

6/14 was 21486 units and accordingly the bill was charged and no further action was required.

Although the consumption has already been billed to the consumer the half margin raised by audit

was accepted and charged by the then SDO. The Consumer represented for withdrawal of the

amount charged but his office is not competent to withdraw the amount thus the case for withdrawal

already referred to higher authorities. A copy of reply filed by SDO was handed over to the

complainant. The complainant expressed satisfaction over the reply of the SDO but insisted

withdrawal of excess charging with surcharge at an early date.

After perusal of the records in the case file and hearing of both the parties the Forum finds

that the case for withdrawal of HM has already been initiated being not chargeable in the first

instance as the actual consumption already billed to the consumer being a case of late submission

of the advice to the billing agency in the case of new connection. The Forum therefore decides to

dispose of the complaint with the direction to respondent SDO to get the refund alongwith surcharge

levied if any, processed within a period of one month from the date of this order. The case is closed.






If the petitioner is not satisfied with the decision of CGRF, he has the right to file an appeal before the appropriate authority 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



Present:-




In the matter of complaint of Sh. Santosh Kumar Pandit, A-52 Third Floor, FIEE

complex, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2 Faridabad in the matter of excess charging in

the bill.


V/s

1. Xen/Op. DHBVN, Old Faridabad. 2.SDO/Op. S/Divn. Tilpat DHBVN, Faridabad.


Appearance:-

For Complainant: 1.Presxent. For the Respondent: 1.None from Nodal Officer, CGRF, DHBVN,

1. SDO/Op S/D Tilpat Faridabad



. ORDER

Sh. Santosh Kumar Pandit, A-52 Third Floor, FIEE complex, Okhla Industrial Area,

Phase-2 Faridabad has got an electricity connection bearing A/C No. 9227850000 under SDO/Op.

S/D DHBVN, Tilpat Faridabad, hence this Forum has jurisdiction to hear the complaint.

The complainant has filed the present complaint stating that his meter was replaced and after replacement of meter the bills have been raised on average basis. The average consumption

has not been adjusted in the subsequent bills as per actual consumption causing excess demand.

The complainant requested this Forum to get his bill corrected. The complaint was forwarded to the Nodal Officer for filing the written reply of the Nigam and


The proceedings held at Faridabad on 08.08.2017. The complainant and respondent SDO were present. The SDO filed written reply vide his No. Spl 1 dated 08.08.17 stating that the bill of

complainant has already been rectified vide SCA&R No. R-48/120 Rs. (-) 3945.00 but current bill adjustment is not shown due to bill in process and same will be reflected in the bill of 09/2017. A

copy of the reply was handed over to the complainant. The complainant was satisfied.

After going through the records in the case file and hearing both the parties, the Forum finds that the grievance of the consumer has already been redressed by respondent SDO, therefore, the

complaint is disposed of with the direction to SDO that the adjustment carried out through sundry is reflected in the next bill of consumer. The case is closed. Both the parties to bear their own cost.


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


If the petitioner is not satisfied with the decision of CGRF, he has the right to file an appeal before the competent authority 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-2016. File be consigned to record.





Present:-




In the matter of complaint of Kranti Vikash Parishad Welfare Association, H.N.

1114/65, Sector-65, Ballabgarh (Faridabad) regarding deficiency in electrical

installations.


V/s

1. Xen/Op. DHBVN, Ballabgarh. 2.SDO/Op. City S/Divn. DHBVN, Ballabgarh.


Appearance:-

For Complainant: 1. Present. For the Respondent: 1. None from Nodal Officer, CGRF,

DHBVN, Hisar 2. SDO/Op City DHBVN Ballabgarh

.



ORDER

Kranti Vikash Parishad Welfare Association, H.N. 1114/65, Sector-65, Ballabgarh

(Faridabad) has filed the present complaint stating that there is poor earthing, frequent

tripping/power cuts and loose wiring all over the sector which is causing harassment to the residents

and requested the Forum to get the power related deficiencies removed from the Licensee. The complaint was forwarded to the Nodal Officer for filing the written reply of the Nigam and


the case.

The proceedings held at Faridabad on 08.08.2017. The respondent SDO was present. No one from RWA appeared. The respondent SDO filed written reply vide his No. Spl.1 dated 08.08.17

stating that LT side work in Sector 62 & 65 is under progress and will be completed within a period of 25 days. During oral submission, the respondent SDO alongwith area incharge JE also informed the

Forum the improvement works in Sector-62 are almost complete and remaining works will be completed at the earliest. With the completion of improvement works under progress, the complaints of RWA will be addressed.

After going through the records in the case file and hearing oral submissions of respondent

SDO, the Forum observed that the improvement works have already been undertaken in the Sector

by the Licensee and are under progress. The Forum, therefore, decides to dispose of complaint in terms of reply and status of works filed by the respondent SDO with the direction to file the completion report of ongoing works within a period of one month. The case is closed. Both the






establishment of Forum for Redressal of Grievances of consumers, Electricity Ombudsman and Consumer Advocacy) Regulations-2016.





Present:-




In the matter of complaint of M/S Unitech Hygene Products, Plot No. 31/123/2/2

Village Bhukarpur, PO Machhgar, Near Veternary Hospital Ballabgarh (Faridabad)

regarding wrong billing.


V/s

1. Xen/Op. DHBVN, Greater Faridabad. 2.SDO/Op. S/Divn. DHBVN, Badraula.


Appearance:-


DHBVN, Hisar 2. None from Licensee

.



ORDER

M/S Unitech Hygene Products, Plot No. 31/123/2/2 Village Bhukarpur, PO Machhgar,

Near Veternary Hospital Ballabgarh (Faridabad) has got an electricity connection bearing A/C No.

DA-31-0040-L under SDO/Op. S/D DHBVN Badraula hence this Forum has jurisdiction to hear the

complaint. The complainant has filed the present complaint through Sh. Deepak Kumar Properiter

stating that theirs is a proprietorship Start up unit. In the meter installed at his premises only 30 units

of electricity has been consumed uptil now as no production has started in the unit. He got an

electricity bill from the Licensee which is issued on average basis by taking consumption of 960 units in the month of November & December 2016. The bill amount is Rs.15498.00 which is higher

compared to actual consumption. The complainant requested this Forum to get the bill corrected as per actual consumption.

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 08.08.2017 at Faridabad for hearing of the case.

The proceedings held at Faridabad on 08.08.2017. The complainant was present but the

respondent SDO was not present. The complainant presented his case by arguing that the bills

raised are not as per actual consumption and the average charged in the month of Nov. & Dec.2016 has not been adjusted in the subsequent bills raised causing hardship to him. No written reply was

filed nor any representative from the S/D was present to defend the case on behalf of Licensee despite due notice.

Keeping in view the hardship of the complainant which is a start up unit, the Forum decides

to proceed in the matter on the basis of the available records. A scrutiny of the bills of the consumer, revealed that average charged in the initial bills have not been adjusted by the Licensee. The

Forum, therefore, decides to dispose of the complaint with the direction to the respondent SDO to

adjust average charged in the month of Nov. & Dec.2016 in the next bill of the consumer. 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.


before the competent authority within one month from the date of receipt of the order of the Forum



FORUM FOR REDRESSAL OF CONSUMER GRIEVANCES DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM D-BLOCK, Ground Floor, Vidyut Sadan, Vidyut Nagar, Hisar-125 005 Telephone No. 01662-223081 (website: www.dhbvn.com) (e-mail ID: [email protected]) ___________________________________________________________ Case No. DH/CGRF-1808/2017 Date of Institution: 11.07.2017 Date of Hearing: 11.08.2017 Date of order 11.08.2017 Before the Forum for Redressal of Consumer Grievances, DHBVN.

Present:-


In the matter of complaint of Smt. Urmila Sheoran w/o Sh. Ram Sheoran, House

No.548/Sector-15A Hisar regarding allow of rebate for women consumers in the tariff.


V/s 1. XEN/Op. Division No.1, DHBVN, Hisar. 2.SDO(OP)Civil Line, DHBVN, Hisar. …………….Respondents

Appearance:-

For Complainant: 1.Representative For the Respondent: 1.Nodal Officer, CGRF, DHBVN, Hisar.

2.SDO (OP) Civil Line Hisar



ORDER Smt. Urmila Sheoran w/o Sh. Ram Sheoran, House No.548/Sector-15A has got

an electricity connection bearing A/C No. 2206520000 under SDO (op) Civil Line Hisar hence

this Forum has jurisdiction to hear the complaint.

The complainant has filed the present complaint, stating therein that rebate @ 10 paise

per unit of electricity consumption as per instructions of Licensee is not being allowed in her bills

being woman consumer and requested this Forum for grant of admissible rebate.



of the case. The proceedings held at Hisar on 11.08.2017. The representative of consumer and

respondent SDO were present. The SDO filed written statement vide No.664-66 dated 09.08.17

stating that woman rebate of above said consumer has already been given by his office since

Jan.2016 and also produced a statement giving details of rebate from Jan.16 to June-2017. The

latest bill of the consumer was also placed on record. The requisite rebate @ 10 paise /unit was

duly reflected in the bill of consumer which was shown to the representative of consumer and

agreed by him.

After perusal of records and hearing the parties, the Forum observed that the requisite

action in the grievance of consumer has already been taken by respondent SDO. Therefore, the

Forum decides to dispose of the complaint in terms of defense reply and 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 appropriate authority 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-2016.

File be consigned to record. Given under our hands on this day of 11th August, 2017.


FORUM FOR REDRESSAL OF CONSUMER GRIEVANCES DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM D-BLOCK, Ground Floor, Vidyut Sadan, Vidyut Nagar, Hisar-125 005 Telephone No. 01662-223081 (website: www.dhbvn.com) (e-mail ID: [email protected]) ___________________________________________________________ Case No. DH/CGRF-1811/2017 Date of Institution: 17.07.2017 Date of Hearing: 25.07.2017 & 30.08.2017 Date of Order : 01.09.2017 Before the Forum for Redressal of Consumer Grievances, DHBVN. Present:-

K.D.Bansal, Member Technical-cum-Chairman Rajesh Sharma, Member/Accounts Mannu Bishnoi, Independent Member

In the matter of complaint of Smt. Sunita Devi w/o Sh. Vijay Singh, A-120 Sushant Lok-II Secto

-55 Gurugram regarding billing problem.


V/s

1. Xen/Op. S/U Division , DHBVN, Gurugram. 2. SDO (OP) S/U South City DHBVN Gurugram


Appearance:-


2.Representative of SDO



ORDER

Smt. Sunita Devi w/o Sh. Vijay Singh, A-120 Sushant Lok-II Sector -55 Gurugram has

got an electricity connection bearing 7963960000 under SDO/(OP) South City Sub-Division,

DHBVN, Gurugram, hence this Forum has jurisdiction to hear the complaint.

The complainant has filed the present complaint stating therein that her S/Phase meter

got damaged and replaced in the year 2015 as per her complaint. Now after 2 years DHBVN

has raised a demand of Rs.62000.00 citing M&T report which is illegal and unjustified. The

meter was not checked in his presence. The consumer requested for withdrawal of excess

charges debited in her account.





representative of respondent SDO were present. The SDO submitted written reply through

Nodal Officer/CGRF, vide his memo No. 663 dated 24.06.2017 stating therein that the meter of

the consumer was changed vide MCO No. 339879/14-15 dated 07.05.15 by Sh. Harjinder JE

and old meter sent to Lab vide challan No.969 dated 29.07.15 The meter was checked in the

M&T lab and reported that two no. meter body locks found tampered so his office charged Rs.

63060.00 as assessment and Rs.8000.00 as compounding and debiting in consumer a/c.

Consumer represented his office for testing of meter in her presence from M&T lab but old

meter could not be traced out as per report of JE area incharge. Representative of sub division

argued the case in line of written submission.

A copy of the reply was handed over to the representative of the consumer who was not

satisfied and argued that the theft case prepared after two years of removal of meter is not at all

justified and the meter was not checked in her presence hence the findings of lab & charging

made by S/D are not acceptable to her at this stage. Representative of complainant requested

for withdrawal of charges so debited. It was also brought out before the Forum that premises

was vacant at the time and the assessment so worked out by DHBVN is not justified.

After hearing both the parties, the Forum directs the complainant to place on record the

proof of vacancy of house during the period to which assessment pertains and respondent SDO

was asked to produce copy of consumption data of consumer for the last 5 years. The case is

adjourned to the next date i.e. 29.08.2017 for final hearing. Both the parties to remain present.

The proceeding of the case held at Gurgaon on 30.08.17. The representative of

complainant and respondent S/D were present. The respondent SDO filed consumption data of

the consumer from the year 2008 onwards. Perusal of consumption data for about two years

block each revealed the following trend:-

Period Units consumed

2011 to 2013 8209 units

2013 to 2015 4299 units

2015 to 2017 13207 units (after replacement of meter)

Thus the consumption recorded in the intervening period of 2013 to 2015 is on lower

side. The complainant stated that a new three phase meter installed even thereafter the

consumption during the period 2015 to 2017 increased significantly over the period 2013-2015.

The complainant filed a document written by Smt. Sunita Devi to the address of XEN

cum Nodal officer CGRF DHBVN Hisar, though the document is not signed by Smt. Sunita Devi

herself in whose name the connection exists, stating that her house No. A-120 Sushant Lok

Sector-55 remained under repair/const. of second floor from Oct.2014 to May-2015 therefore,

the electricity consumption during the period remained on lower side and she has not done any

tampering with the meter. One Sh. M.C. Sood of the locality acknowledged on this document

that he is not aware of any tampering but the house was under construction. Another person Sh.

Om Parkash Nambardar Village Ghatta Sub Tehsil Wazirabad Gurgaon signed the document

with the remarks that Sh. Kulwant Singh owner of H.N. 109 Sushant Lok-II Sector-55 Gurgaon.

The complainant argued that consumption during the period 2013 to 2015 was genuinely

on lower side due to repair/renovation of house during this period and not on a/c of any

tampering in the meter.

After considering the records and hearing both the parties, the Forum finds that there

was abnormal variation in the consumption recorded in the meter. The complainant has failed to

produce any conclusive evidence/document in support of her claim that the house remained

under repair/construction. The document filed during proceedings on 30.08.17 does not even

bears the signature of consumer/complainant. The Forum therefore decides not to interfere in

the proceedings initiated and charges levied by the respondent S/D in the matter and decide to

dispose of the complaint in terms of reply of respondent SDO.


appeal before the competent authority within one month from the date of receipt of the order of



Present:-




In the matter of complaint of Sh. Sudhir Kumar, H.N. 2585 Airforce Road

Jawahar Colony Faridabad regarding excess demand of ACD.


V/s

1. Xen/Op. DHBVN, NIT Faridabad. 2.SDO/Op. S/Divn. J.Colony DHBVN, Faridabad.


Appearance:-


DHBVN, Hisar 2. SDO/Op J.Colony Faridabad

.



ORDER

Sh. Sudhir Kumar, H.N. 2585 Airforce Road Jawahar Colony Faridabad has got an

electricity connection bearing A/C No. 8574401000 under SDO/Op. S/D DHBVN, Jawahar Colony

Faridabad, hence this Forum has jurisdiction to hear the complaint. The complainant has filed the present complaint stating that the security amount of

Rs.1000.0 has been shown as deposited in the record of S/Divn. However, the same has again been got deposited at the time of extension of load which is wrong and requested this Forum for refund of

excess security got deposited by SDO. 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 08.08.2017 at Faridabad for hearing of the case. The proceedings held at Faridabad on 08.08.2017. The complainant and respondent SDO

were present. The SDO filed written reply vide his No. 4060 dated 29.07.17 stating that the consumer has applied for extension of load from 2.0 kw to 5.0 kw. The online system shows that

consumer has already deposited Rs.1000.00 as security against 2.0 kw. However, as per service register the consumer has applied for new connection on dated 15.11.1989 and deposited Rs.30.00

on 16.01.1990 on account of ACD. As per record no security amount was deposited against consumer account No.8574401000. Accordingly his office charged balance ACD of Rs.1000.00

from the consumer vide receipt No. BA-16-350 dated 18.05.2017. A copy of the reply was handed over to the complainant.

The complainant insisted that as per online system entry, security amount of Rs.1000.00 is

shown as deposited against his connection as such the amount again deposited may be refunded to him. The respondent SDO argued that at the time of creating of master data of ACD of old

consumers there is possibility of error as the connection dates back to the year 1989. However, the record has been verified and as per service connection register an amount of Rs.30.00 is actually

deposited by the consumer towards ACD.

The complainant was asked to produce the receipt/or any other document in support of claim of depositing Rs.1000.00 towards ACD at the time of availing the connection or afterwards which

was not produced.

After going through the records in the case file and hearing both the parties, the Forum finds that the original amount of security/ACD is Rs.30.00 only in the books of Licensee and balance ACD

Rs.1000.00 has rightly been charged by the respondent SDO. The complainant failed to produce any document in support of his claim. The Forum therefore, finds no merit in the complaint and

decides to dispose of the same in terms of reply of SDO The case is closed. Both the parties to bear their own cost.






In the matter of complaint of Sh. Surender Kumar, s/o Sh. Gian Chand, Shop No.15,

Jagdambay Colony Sirsa regarding excess charging in the bill.


V/s

1 Xen/Op. City Division, DHBVN, Sirsa 2 SDO (OP) City Sub-Division, DHBVN, Sirsa

…….Respondents


None

For the Respondent 1 Nodal Officer/CGRF, DHBVN, Hisar 2 Comml. Asstt of SDO (OP) City DHBVN Sirsa



ORDER

Sh. Surender Kumar, s/o Sh. Gian Chand, Shop No.15, Jagdambay Colony Sirsa has

got an electricity connection bearing A/C No. 2384480000 under SDO/Op City Sub-Division,


The complainant has filed the present complaint stating therein that charging of Rs.75920.00

made in the bill for Feb.2017 under the head ‘sundry charges and allowances’’ is unjustified as the

meter supply was not in use for a long time and meter was removed in good condition. The

complainant requested for correction of his bill. 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 16.08.2017 at Sirsa for hearing of the case.

The proceedings of the case held at Sirsa on 16.08.17. The complainant was not present

nor any representative appeared on his behalf. The Comml Asst of City Sub Divn was present and

filed written statement vide No.7582 dated 3.8.17 stating that the accuracy of the meter removed

from the site of consumer got checked from M&T lab and meter found dead stop. Both seals were intact but meter glass broken. After opening meter body no abnormality found. The reading verified

by the lab did not match with the billing system as such the consumer was charged on the basis of normative consumption based on connected load for Rs.75920.00 vide SCA&R No.135/562. A copy

of M&T lab report, LL-1 and calculation detail also placed on record by the respondent S/Divn. After examination of record, the Forum finds that the consumption recorded during period

1/2016 to 12/2016 is not commensurate with the sanctioned load of 4.0 kw. It was also observed that the meter stopped functioning at 45960 kwh as verified by M&T Lab and recorded in LL-1 duly

acknowledged by the consumer himself. Still the consumer was charged on normative consumption basis ignoring actual reading.

The Forum therefore decides that consumer account may be overhauled by charging for the units recorded in the meter. The penal action against meter reading agency for not recording the correct readings may also be initiated in terms of the applicable guidelines of Licensee. The case is

closed. Both the parties to bear their own cost. As required under Haryana State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Guidelines for






FORUM FOR REDRESSAL OF CONSUMER GRIEVANCES DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM D-BLOCK, Ground Floor, Vidyut Sadan, Vidyut Nagar, Hisar-125 005 Telephone No. 01662-223081 (website: www.dhbvn.com) (e-mail ID: [email protected]) ___________________________________________________________ Case No. DH/CGRF-1816/2017 Date of Institution: 17.07.2017 Date of Hearing: 11.08.2017 Date of order: 11.08.2017 Before the Forum for Redressal of Consumer Grievances, DHBVN.


In the matter of complaint of Sh Baljeet Singh s/o Sh. Chhotu Ram, Village Dhansu Hisar

regarding shifting of electricity line passing over his house.


V/s 1. XEN/Op. Division No.II, DHBVN, Hisar. 2.SDO(OP), DHBVN, Satrod, Hisar. …………….Respondents

Appearance:-


2.SDO (OP) Satrod, Hisar.



ORDER Sh Baljeet Singh s/o Sh. Chhotu Ram, Village Dhansu Hisar has filed the present

complaint stating that high voltage electricity line is passing over his house causing potential

danger of life and property. The complainant requested for shifting of line passing over his

house



of the case. The proceedings held at Hisar on 11.08.2017. The complainant and respondent SDO

were present. The complainant presented his case in line with written complaint already filed.

The respondent SDO filed written statement through Nodal Officer vide No.5851-52 dated

11.08.17 stating that estimate for removing electricity line passing over the house of the

complainant has been framed by his office and work for removing line will be executed within 10

days as per availability of material to redress the grievance of the complainant. During oral

submission, the consumer admitted that the electricity line existed and he has constructed the

house later on the proximity of electricity line.

After perusal of records and hearing the parties, the Forum decides that noticed for

depositing the estimated amount be issued to the complainant and work of shifting may be

undertaken and completed within 10 days thereafter. With this direction the case is closed. Both

the parties to bear their own cost.











Given under our hands on this day of 11th August, 2017. (K.D.Bansal) (Rajesh Sharma) (Manu Bishnoi) Member Technical Member/Accounts Independent Member -cum-Chairman

FORUM FOR REDRESSAL OF CONSUMER GRIEVANCES DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM D-BLOCK, Ground Floor, Vidyut Sadan, Vidyut Nagar, Hisar-125 005 Telephone No. 01662-223081 (website: www.dhbvn.com) (e-mail ID: [email protected]) ___________________________________________________________ Case No. DH/CGRF-1817/2017 Date of Institution: 24.07.2017 Date of Hearing: 11.08.2017 Date of Order: 11.08.2017 Before the Forum for Redressal of Consumer Grievances, DHBVN.

Present:-


In the matter of complaint of Sh. Vijesh s/o Sh. Ram Sukh, 1004 Bala Ji Chowk, Mahavir Colony

Hisar regarding non receipt of electricity bills.


V/s 1. XEN/Op. Division No.I, DHBVN, Hisar. 2.SDO(OP), City S/Divn. DHBVN, Hisar. …………….Respondents

Appearance:-

For Complainant: 1.None For the Respondent: 1.Nodal Officer, CGRF, DHBVN, Hisar.

2. SDO(OP), City S/Divn. DHBVN, Hisar.



ORDER Sh. Vijesh s/o Sh. Ram Sukh, 1004 Bala Ji Chowk Mahavir Colony Hisar has got an

electricity connection bearing account No.0189920000 under SDO (OP) City S/Divn. Hisar


The complainant has filed present complaint stating that his electricity bills are not being

delivered in time. The Bill Distributors keep the bills with them for days together causing levy of

surcharge by respondent Nigam. The employees of Licensee also misbehaved with the

consumer. The complainant requested for timely delivery of bill enabling him to pay the bill

accordingly and also for withdrawal of surcharge levied in his bills due to late delivery of bills.



of the case. The proceedings held at Hisar on 11.08.2017. The complainant was not present nor any

representative of his behalf. The respondent SDO were present. The respondent SDO filed

written reply through Nodal Officer vide No.9598 dated 11.08.17 stating that the bills are

distributed by M/S NVG. The surcharge of Rs.33.00 and 97.00 levied due to non receipt of bills

have been adjusted vide SC&AR No.529/92A and 530/92A respectively. Further, no employee

misbehaved with the consumer. At some time due to poor connectivity the bill printing may be

delayed. The SDO also placed on record the copies of bills where the surcharge amount has

been withdrawn / adjusted.

After perusal of records and reply filed by the SDO, the Forum observed that the late

payment surcharge levied in the bills of consumer has already been withdrawn. The Forum

therefore decided to dispose of the complaint in terms of defense reply with the direction to

respondent SDO to ensure timely delivery of bills to the aggrieved consumer. The Case is


A separate complaint filed by Sh.Mahender Singh Shekhawat, H No. 999 Bala Ji Chowk,

Mahavir Colony Hisar is also disposed of in terms of above order.

If the petitioners are not satisfied with the decision of CGRF, they have the right to file an









Case No. DH/CGRF- 1818 /2017 Date of Institution: 18/07/2017 Date of Hearing: 22.08.2017 Date of Order : 23.08.2017



In the matter of complaint of Sh. Ram Kishan Sharma President RWA , H.N. 2087, Sector-13

Bhiwani regarding tightening of loose wires, voltage fluctuations and pruning of trees interfering

with electrical lines.


V/s

XEN (OP) City Divn. DHBVN Bhiwani SDO (OP) S/U Sub Divn. No.1, DHBVN Bhiwani

…….Respondents Appearance:- For Complainant:

Present

For the Respondent

1 Nodal Officer CGRF,DHBVN Hisar.. 2 SDO (OP) S/U Sub Divn. No.1, DHBVN Bhiwani



ORDER

Sh. Ram Kishan Sharma, President RWA, H.N. 2087, Sector-13 Bhiwani under SDO/Op. S/U

Sub-Division, No.1,DHBVN, Bhiwani, has filed the present complaint, regarding tightening of wires of

street light in Sector-13, release of electricity connection to the Community Centre of Sector-13,

replacement of conductor with cable, voltage fluctuations and pruning of trees interfering with the

electrical lines passing through Sector-13, Bhiwani.


both the parties were asked to appear before the Forum on 22/08/2017 at Bhiwani for hearing of the

case.

The proceedings of the case held at Bhiwani on 22.08.2017. The complainant and respondent

SDO were present. Respondent SDO filed reply vide memo No.7976 dated 18.08.2017 stating that

the:-

1. The complainant has made complaint regarding tightening of street light wires of Sector 13 &

23. In this regard, it is stated that maintenance of street light is under the jurisdiction of

Municipal Committee/HUDA.

2. The second complaint is regarding release of electric connection in community centre Sector-

13 Bhiwani for which it is stated that the connection has been disconnected on account of

defaulting amount and can be restored on payment of pending dues.

3. The third complaint is regarding replacement of conductor with cable for which it is stated that

as per JE Incharge report after checking of site there is 3 SWG ACSR LT line is installed and

there are no chances of accident and line is working very smoothly. However, in the area where

there is low size conductor and line is risky cable is being provided.

4. The fourth complaint is regarding tree cutting for which work is under process. This is routine

practice and is being carried out for mtc. of line purpose.

During the hearing, the complainant filed a rejoinder dated 22.08.2017 stating that the

conductor near house No. 2081 to 2088 and four houses thereafter is passing through the trees and

may break any time. The complainant requested for its replacement with the cable of approx. 1400

feet.

A copy of reply was handed over to the complainant. Both the parties argued the case in line

with the written submissions.

After going through the records and hearing the parties the Forum finds that the complaint is

frivolous and lack of merits on majority of issues raised therein. The Forum therefore decides to

dispose of the same in terms of reply filed by respondent SDO with the direction to undertake a site

visit in respect of condition of conductor installed in front of H.N. 2081 to 2088 and four houses

thereafter and take action as per extent instructions of the Nigam within a period of one month.

The case is closed. Both the parties to bear their own cost.






before the appropriate authority 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-2016.









In the matter of complaint of Sh. M.B.Acharya, Gali Captain Nathu Singh, Bartan Bazar (Lohar

Bazar) Bhiwani regarding voltage fluctuation.


V/s

XEN (OP) City Divn. DHBVN Bhiwani SDO (OP) City Sub Divn. DHBVN Bhiwani


Present

For the Respondent

1 Nodal Officer CGRF,DHBVN Hisar.. 2 SDO (OP) City Sub Divn. DHBVN Bhiwani



ORDER

Sh. M.B.Acharya, Gali Captain Nathu Singh, Bartan Bazar (Lohar Bazar) Bhiwani has got an

electricity connection having account No. 8870680000 which falls under SDO/Op. City Sub-Division,


The complainant has filed the present complaint, stating therein that there is huge voltage

fluctuation in the electricity supply to his house causing damage to electrical appliances installed in the

house. The water supply is also disrupting on account of voltage fluctuations. The complainant

requested this Forum to get the voltage regulated as per norms to avoid the hardship to him and other

the residents of the area.



case.

The proceedings of the case held at Bhiwani on 22.08.2017. The complainant and

respondent SDO were present. Respondent SDO filed reply vide memo No.1243 dated 18.08.2017

stating that the grievance of the consumer has been resolved on dated 21.08.2017 at 04.40 pm by

replacing the jumper and now the supply is constant and assessed as 210.0 volt without any

interruption as per schedule. A copy of reply was handed over to the complainant. The complainant

acknowledged that his grievance has been resolved.

As the grievance of the consumer has been resolved, the Forum decides to close the case.






Regulations-2016.






Present:-




In the matter of complaint of Smt. Motia Kumari w/o Late Sh. Tirth Ram, H.N.

3C/7, SGM Nagar, NIT Faridabad (correspondence address: 1B-180, Near Phawara

Singh Chowk, NIT, Faridabad) in the matter of wrong billing.


V/s

1. Xen/Op. DHBVN, Old Faridabad. 2.SDO/Op. S/Divn. No.4, Faridabad.


Appearance:-


DHBVN, 2. Representative of SDO/OP.

.



ORDER

Smt. Motia Kumari w/o Late Sh. Tirth Ram, H.N. 3C/7, SGM Nagar, NIT Faridabad has

got an electricity connection bearing A/C No. 4786240000 under SDO/Op. S/D No. 4 DHBVN


The complainant has filed the present complaint stating that her electricity bill for the

month of April, 2017 has been raised for Rs.29752/-. On enquiry it was informed that additional

charges on account of old meter being faulty has been added in the current bill. The

complainant stated that the meter was replaced quite a time back and 3-4 bills after

replacement of the meter have already been raised which she paid in time. No information of

her old meter being faulty /tampered has ever been given to her nor the old meter was

shown/checked in her presence. After pursuance a skeleton of meter (photograph enclosed)

was shown to her stating that this meter was removed from her premises. The meter shown to

her was badly damaged whereas the meter removed from her site was perfectly in good

condition. The complainant requested this Forum to get the excess charges withdrawn.




The proceedings held at Faridabad on 08.08.2017. The complainant and representative

of respondent SDO were present. The complainant argued her case in line with the written

complaint and requested for setting aside excess charges levied in the current bill citing removal

of meter in good condition, charging the amount without getting the meter checked in her

presence and no notice/intimation before the charging by the SDO.

The respondent SDO filed written reply stating that the meter checked by M&T Lab after

replacement and both firm seals and meter body found tampered as reported by SDO/M&T Lab

vide Memo No.1518 dated 07.12.16. Notices were issued to consumer vide his office Memo

No.493 dated 22.3.17 and No. 661 dated 28.03.17. Hence it is a case of theft of energy and

penalty of Rs.29670/- including compounding Rs.4000/- charged in the consumer account

accordingly. Copy of SDO M&T Lab letter No. 1518 dated 7/12/2016 mentioning therein the

remarks of the lab ‘both firm seals found tampered’ against the consumer meter Sr. No. 950937

of Genus Make 1X5-20A with copies of notices reportedly sent to the consumer placed on

records.

A copy of reply of SDO was provided to the complainant who was not satisfied with the

reply and insisted withdrawal of the charges as per grounds already taken and mentioned in the

aforementioned para. It was further argued that charges levied after 7-8 months of removal of

the meter and without checking of meter in her presence may not be relied. The complainant

also denied receipt of any notice from the office of SDO for associating in meter checking. The

respondent SDO argued as per written reply therein justifying the charges.

The respondent SDO was asked to place on records consumption data for the last three

years, copy of MCO and meter checking report. The consumer’s consumption data from August,

2014 onwards was provided by the SDO as follows:

Period of reading Old Reading (In KWH)

New Reading (in KWH)

consumption (In KWH)

07.8.14 to 07.10.14 17795 18708 913 07.10.14 to 07.12.14 18708 19085 377 07.12.14 to 07.02.15 19085 19340 255 07.02.15 to 07.04.15 19340 19684 344 07.04.15 to 07.06.15 19684 20473 789 07.06.15 to 07.08.15 20473 21481 1008 07.08.15 to 07.10.15 21481 22485 1004 07.10.15 to 07.12.15 22485 22942 457 07.12.15 to 07.02.16 22942 23289 347 07.02.16 to 07.04.16 23289 23745 556 07.04.16 to 07.06.16 23845 24443 598 07.06.16 to 07.08.16 24443 25525 782 07.08.16 to 07.10.16 25225 25629 404 07.10.16 to 08.12.16 25629 26033 404 08.12.16 to 07.02.17 01 198 197 07.02.17 to 07.04.17 198 335 137 07.04.17 to 07.06.17 335 641 306

The closing reading of 26033 tallies the report of M&T lab sent to SDO (OP) S/D No.4

vide M&T Lab Memo No.1518 dated 7.12.2016. Copy of MCO and M&T checking report of the

meter, as required by the Forum, was not placed on records by the respondent SDO alongwith

consumption data.

As the proposed charging has been made on account of suspected theft, the Forum

decides not to pass specific orders on the merits of the case. However, considering the facts on

records and non providing all relevant records by the respondent sub division as

aforementioned, the Forum decides that the matter be considered by the SE/OP Circle,

DHBVN, Faridabad and a speaking order in this regard be made in a period of one month. The

case is closed. Both the parties to bear their own cost.






Present:-


In the matter of complaint of Sh Gulshan Kumar Khurana H.N.1395/UE-II Hisar regarding wrong

billing.


V/s 1. XEN/Op. Division No.I, DHBVN, Hisar. 2.SDO(OP), Civil Lines DHBVN, Hisar. …………….Respondents

Appearance:-


2.SDO (OP) Civil Lines, Hisar.



ORDER Sh Gulshan Kumar Khurana H.N.1395/UE-II Hisar has got an electricity connection

being account No.3387920000 under SDO(OP) C/Lines Hisar hence this Forum has jurisdiction


The complainant has filed present complaint stating that his family shifted to

Bahadurgarh and their house is locked with no electricity consumption. He also made a

reference to SDO in this regard before shifting. However, bills on average basis are being

issued and supply also disconnected. The complainant requested for correction of bills and get

minimum amount charges as per applicable instructions.






11.08.17 stating that the reading in the meter was not visible as reported during checking of JE

on dated 8.8.17. The bills were issued on average basis. The complainant countered the

argument by stating that supply is already disconnected and the reading may not be visible due

to non supply in the meter at the time of checking.

The SDO was directed to get the meter checked on today. Checking report has been

placed on record and as per report the meter was found OK with last reading as 7880 KWH.

After perusal of records and hearing the parties, the Forum decides that the average bills

of the consumer may be corrected by charging the actual reading or MMC as applicable and

supply may be restored. With this direction, the case is closed. Both the parties to bear their

own cost.














Present:-




In the matter of complaint of Sh. Vijay Kumar Plot No.3, Sai Nagar Mawai

Faridabad in the matter of wrong billing.


V/s

1. Xen/Op. DHBVN, Greater Faridabad. 2.SDO/Op. S/Divn. Kheri Kalan, Faridabad.


Appearance:-


DHBVN, 2. SDO/Op Kheri Kalan

.



ORDER

Sh. Vijay Kumar Plot No.3, Sai Nagar Mawai Faridabad has got an electricity connection

bearing A/C No. 3610790000 under SDO/Op. S/D DHBVN, Kheri Kalan Faridabad, hence this

Forum has jurisdiction to hear the complaint. The complainant has filed the present complaint stating that his meter became faulty in

Nov.2016 and was replaced only in April 2017 after his great pursuance with the respondent Nigam. The complainant stated that during the period the meter remained faulty, incorrect and inflated bills

have been raised on average basis. The consumer requested this Forum to get his bills corrected. The complaint was forwarded to the Nodal Officer for filing the written reply of the Nigam and


were present. The complainant presented his case arguing that inflated bills have been raised during the meter remained defective and even after replacement of meter in April-2017 the bills have

been raised on average basis and requested for correction of the same. The respondent SDO was present and informed that written reply could not be prepared but the requisite adjustment in the bills

of consumer are under process and same shall be reflected in ensuing bill of the consumer.

After going through the records in the case file and hearing both the parties, the Forum finds that this is a case of non adjustment of average billing made during the period the meter remained

faulty. The Forum therefore, decides to dispose of the complaint with the direction to respondent

SDO that the bills of the consumer for the period Nov.2016 to March 2017 during which average has

been charged may be correcting by taking the consumption of corresponding months of previous year as the meter of consumer was working OK during this period. Further, the average charged

during the month of April-2017 to July 2017 may be adjusted by taking actual consumption of new meter as the meter has been replaced in the month of April-2017. All these adjustments be reflected

in the next bill of the consumer. The case is closed. Both the parties to bear their own cost.





before the competent authority 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




Present:-




In the matter of complaint of Sh. Suraj Kumar, H.N. 111 Moti Colony Sehatpur



V/s



Appearance:-


DHBVN, Hisar 2. SDO/Op S/D Tilpat Faridabad



. ORDER

Sh. Suraj Kumar, H.N. 111 Moti Colony Sehatpur Faridabad has got an electricity

connection bearing A/C No. 8839650000 under SDO/Op. S/D DHBVN, Tilpat Faridabad, hence this Forum has jurisdiction to hear the complaint.


has not been adjusted in the subsequent bills as per actual consumption causing excess demand. The complainant requested this Forum to get his 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 08.08.2017 at Faridabad for hearing of

the case.

The proceedings held at Faridabad on 08.08.2017. The complainant and respondent SDO

were present. The SDO filed written reply vide his No. Spl 2 dated 08.08.17 stating that the bill of complainant has already been rectified vide SCA&R No. R-48/293 Rs. (-) 16177.00 and same will be

reflected in the bill of 09/2017. A copy of the reply was handed over to the complainant. The complainant was satisfied.


that the grievance of the consumer has already been redressed by respondent SDO, therefore, the complaint is disposed of with the direction to SDO that the adjustment carried out through sundry is

reflected in the next bill of consumer. The case is closed. Both the parties to bear their own cost.










Present:-


In the matter of complaint of Principal Govt Colllege for Women, Delhi Bye Pass, Hisar




Appearance:-





ORDER Principal Govt Colllege for Women, Delhi Bye Pass, Hisar has got an electricity

connection bearing account No.1741620000 under SDO (OP) City S/Divn. Hisar hence this


The complainant has filed present complaint stating that their electricity bill for the month

of July-2017 has been issued for Rs.146696/- with unit consumption of 19620 which is much

higher than their average consumption of 4000-5000 units. The complainant requested for

correction of their bill.



of the case. The proceedings held at Hisar on 11.08.2017. The representative of complainant and

respondent SDO were present. The complainant presented his case in line with written

complaint already filed. The respondent SDO filed written statement through Nodal Officer vide

No.9597 dated 11.08.17 stating that bill of consumer is correct as per reading recorded by the

representative of BCITS (reading agency). The meter of the consumer was changed on

26.07.17 at last reading was 62773 KWH with block burnt. The SDO also produced the meter

before the Forum to ascertain the last reading recorded in the meter. The last reading was

confirmed as 62773.9. with MDI as 33.33 KVA. There was no counter argument by the

representative of the complainant.

After perusal of records and hearing the parties, the Forum observed that the bills have

been raised as per actual consumption and no further action is required at the end of Licensee.

The complaint is disposed of in terms of the reply of respondent SDO. The Case is closed. Both














In the matter of complaint of Sh. Sukhvinder Singh, Correspondence Address :Water

Supply and Sanitation Divn.No.2 Mansa (Pb) regarding change of name and extension of load

of AP connection.


V/s

1 Xen/Op. Division, DHBVN, Dabwali 2 SDO (OP) Sub-Division, DHBVN, Kalanwali

…….Respondents


None

For the Respondent 1 Nodal Officer/CGRF, DHBVN, Hisar 2 Comml. Asstt of SDO (OP) DHBVN Kalanwali



ORDER

Sh. Sukhvinder Singh of Mansa Punjab has got an electricity connection bearing A/C No.

BH-61-0073 under SDO/Op. Sub-Division, DHBVN, Kalanwali, hence this Forum has jurisdiction to

hear the complaint.

The complainant has filed the present complaint stating therein that the he applied for

extension of load from 10 BHP to 20 BHP and change of name in the connection but no action has been taken by the concerned S/D even after a lapse of 3 months. The complainant requested for

getting his grievance redressed from the respondent S/Divn. The complaint was forwarded to the Nodal Officer for filing the written reply of the Nigam and



nor any representative appeared on his behalf. The Comml Asstt from Sub Divn was present and

filed written reply vide No.2799 dated 17.08.17 stating that no charges or security for extension of

load /change of name has been deposited in the office by the consumer hence request was not processed. During oral submission the representative submitted that application is incomplete;

contain no documents/security etc. A notice to the consumer vide No.2797 dated 16.08.17 has been issued to the complainant for complying with the conditions and deposit the requisite charges so as

to process the application as per applicable instructions. Moreover, the revenue records (Killa and Murabba No.) in respect of existing connection and that now applied by the complainant are different

and do not tally with the records of S/Divn. After examination of record and hearing both the parties, the Forum finds no merit in the

complaint and dismiss the same. The case is closed. Both the parties to bear their own cost.










In the matter of complaint of Sh. Radha Singh, Booth No.14 New Anaj Mandi Sirsa



V/s

1 Xen/Op. City Division, DHBVN, Sirsa 2 SDO (OP) I/Area Sub-Division, DHBVN, Sirsa

…….Respondents


Present

For the Respondent 1 Nodal Officer/CGRF, DHBVN, Hisar 2 Comml. Asstt of SDO (OP) I/Area DHBVN Sirsa



ORDER

Sh. Radha Singh, Booth No.14 New Anaj Mandi Sirsa has got electricity connection bearing

A/C No. 1415370000 under SDO/Op. I/Area Sub-Division, DHBVN, Sirsa, hence this Forum has jurisdiction to hear the complaint.

The complainant has filed the present complaint stating therein that the bill for the month of

7/2017 has been raised for accumulated units of 1109 KWH. In the previous months the bill for nominal units by charging MMC has been raised. The complainant requested for correction of his

bill.

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 16.08.2017 at Sirsa for hearing of the

case. The proceedings of the case held at Sirsa on 16.08.17. The complainant and representative

of I/Area Sub Divn were present. The complainant argued his case in line with the written submission and requested for correction of the bill. The S/D filed written statement vide No.2475 dte

8.8.17 stating that the consumer is having NDS connection with sanctioned load of 3.0 KW. During June-July 2017 the reading recorded by the Meter Reader as 1109 and 337 units respectively and

the consumer was billed accordingly. During the period Dec.2016 to May 2017 the units recorded

are in the range of 15-45 but consumer has not lodged any complaint.

After examination of record and hearing both the parties, the Forum finds that this is a

case of accumulation of reading as the average consumption of the consumer during summer

months is in the range of 350-400 KWH hence reading recorded in the month of July2017 i.e. 1109 units commensurate with the consumption of same months of previous year.

The Forum therefore, decides that the reading of 1109 units may be apportioned for a

period of 3 months i.e. May to July-2017 for the purpose of billing and MMC charge from the

consumer if any may be adjusted accordingly. The case is closed. Both the parties to bear their own

cost. As required under Haryana State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Guidelines for



If the petitioner is not satisfied with the decision of CGRF, he has the right to file an appeal before the competent authority 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





Case No. DH/CGRF-1843/2017 Date of Institution: 17.08.2017 Date of Hearing: 30.08.2017 Date of Order : 01.09.2017


1 K.D.Bansal, Member Technical-cum-Chairman 2 Rajesh Sharma, Member Accounts 3 Manu Bishnoi, Independent Member

In the matter of complaint of Smt. Javitri Devi HN 865, Street No.5, Ashok Vihar-1

Gurgaon regarding correction of address in the bill.


V/s

1 XEN (OP) City Divn. DHBVN, Gurgaon 2 SDO (OP) IDC Sub Divn, DHBVN, Gurgaon


None

For the Respondent 1 Representative SDO (OP) IDC DHBVN, Gurgaon 2 Nodal Officer/CGRF, DHBVN, Hisar



ORDER

Smt. Javitri Devi HN 865, Street No.5, Ashok Vihar-1 Gurgaon has got an electricity

connection bearing account No. 8379140000 under IDC City S/D Gurgaon hence this Forum


The complainant has filed the present complain stating therein that the address in their

bill is incorrect due to which they do not get the bill in time and every time have to collect the bill

from the S/D. The complainant requested for correction of address detail in the bill.




The proceedings held at Gurgaon on 30/08/2017. The complainant was not present.

The representative of the S/D was present and submitted written reply through Nodal

Officer/CGRF vide his memo No. 3068 dated 28/08/2017 stating that the address of the

consumer has been updated in the system. A satisfaction filed by the consumer is placed on the

record alongwith snap shot of requisite correction made in the RAPDRP system.

Since the complaint of the consumer already redressed the Forum decides to close the

complaint. The case is closed. Both the parties to bear their own cost.









In the matter of complaint of Sh.Vikshit Siddarth H,N, 625, Saraswati Vihar, Chakkarpur

MG Road, Gurgaon regarding wrong billing.


V/s

1 XEN (OP) City Divn. DHBVN, Gurgaon 2 SDO (OP) DLF City Sub Divn, DHBVN, Gurgaon


Present

For the Respondent 1 Representative of SDO (OP) DLF City Gurgaon 2 Nodal Officer/CGRF, DHBVN, Hisar



ORDER

Sh. Rishi Pal Siddarth H,N, 625, Saraswati Vihar, Chakkarpur MG Road, Gurgaon has

got an electricity connection bearing account No. 2632740000 under DLF City S/D Gurgaon


The complainant has filed the present complain through Sh. Vikshit Siddarth stating

therein that they have two separate connections in the same premises i.e. one for domestic

purpose and another is NDS connection. The complainant stated that the tariff for domestic

connection is being charged at higher rate and probably NDS rates are being applied in

domestic connection. The complainant has requested for correction of bills.




The proceedings held at Gurgaon on 30/08/2017. The complainant and representative

of the S/D were present. The SDO submitted written reply through Nodal Officer/CGRF vide his

memo No. 1504 dated 29/08/2017 stating that two no. connections are running in the premises

bearing No.4637450000 in the name of Sh. Leela Dhar and account No.2632740000 in the

name of sh. Rishi Pal Siddarth. Working of both the meters are within permissible limit and bills

raised to the consumer as per reading and are deposited by the consumers. As per records

there is no billing dispute. S/D representative also informed the Forum that there was some

confusion to the consumer w.r.t. applicability of tariff which has been explained to him and the

consumer is now satisfied with the amount claimed by the Nigam as per bill. The complainant

was present and acknowledged that he is satisfied with the calculations explained by the S/d

and requested this Forum to close the complaint.

After hearing both the parties and satisfaction expressed by the complainant the Forum

decides to close the complaint. The case is closed. Both the parties to bear their own cost.









In the matter of complaint of Sh. Vinod Sood R/o H. No. J-1298A Palam Vihar, Gurgaon



V/s

1 XEN (OP) S/U Divn. DHBVN, Gurgaon 2 SDO (OP) Maruti Sub Divn, DHBVN, Gurgaon


Present

For the Respondent 1 SDO (OP) Maruti Ind. Area Sub Divn. DHBVN, Gurgaon 2 Nodal Officer/CGRF, DHBVN, Hisar



ORDER

Sh. Vinod Sood R/o H. No. J-1298A Palam Vihar, Gurgaon has got an electricity

connection bearing account No. 6585650000 under Maruti I/A S/D Gurgaon hence this Forum


The complainant has filed the present complain stating therein that electricity bill of Rs.

82998.00 for 49 days has been raised to him which is on higher side. He approached the SDO

for correction of the bill but no action has been taken. The complainant requested this Forum

for correction of bill.




The proceedings held at Gurgaon on 30/08/2017. The complainant and respondent

SDO were present. The SDO submitted written reply through Nodal Officer/CGRF vide his

memo No. 5760 dated 29/08/2017 stating that the bill of the consumer for 11266 units

amounting to Rs.82998.00 raised for the month of 8/2017. The current reading checked and

found correct. The meter working is also OK. The consumer has a sanctioned load of 15.0 kw.

The consumption recorded from 24.9.15 to 20.7.16 is 33608 units and for the period 20.9.16 to

1.8.2017 is 27336 units. Thus the consumption of the consumer is almost consistent hence

there is no abnormality. There is accumulation of reading due to bogus reading taken by meter

reading agency i.e. M/s NYG in the month of 6/2017. The meter reading agency has since been

removed from the work and bill issued to the consumer in 8/2017 is correct and as per reading

recorded by the meter.

The complainant was not satisfied with the reply filed by SDO and insisted that if any

wrong reading is recorded in the previous month by the meter reading agency of Licensee he

cannot be held responsible for the same.

After hearing both the parties and perusal of records, the Forum agrees with the version

of the Sub Division. The penal action against meter reading agency has already been taken.

The forum therefore decides to dispose of the complaint without any direction to the Licensee in

this matter. The case is closed. Both the parties to bear their own cost.



FORUM FOR REDRESSAL OF CONSUMER GRIEVANCES DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM D-BLOCK, Ground Floor, Vidyut Sadan, Vidyut Nagar, Hisar-125 005 Telephone No. 01662-223081 (website: www.dhbvn.com) (e-mail ID: [email protected]) ___________________________________________________________ Case No. DH/CGRF-1755/2017 Date of Institution: 17.05.2017 Date of Hearing: 07.06.2017, 11.07.2017 & 11.08.2017

Date of Order: 11/08/2017 Before the Forum for Redressal of Consumer Grievances, DHBVN.

Present:-


In the matter of complaint of Sh. Narender S/o Sh. Bhomal Ram, V&P.O. Ramayan,

Tehsil, Hansi, Distt., Hisar regarding Low Voltage and strengthening of lines.


V/s 1. XEN/Op. Division, DHBVN, Hansi. 2.JE, Sub-Officer, DHBVN, Umra. …………….Respondents

Appearance:-


2.JE Incharge of sub-office, DHBVN, Umra.



ORDER Sh. Narender S/o Sh. Bhomal Ram, V&P.O. Ramayan, Tehsil, Hansi, Distt., Hisar has

got an electricity connection bearing A/C No. UF53-2038-A (Old A/C No. R-218) under Sub-

office, DHBVN, Umra, hence this Forum has jurisdiction to hear the complaint.


1. The applicant is user of tube well electricity connection which is installed in the name of

his father in their field situated at Village Ramayan. The applicant is regularly paying the

bills of electricity and is law abiding person.

2. The said connection is on 25 KVA Transformer but the load on the said T/F has been

increased to 50 KVA comprised of five AP connections bearing 5 KW each and 10

domestic connections. Due to heavy load recently some fluctuation occurred in the T/F

and due to which the fields of the applicant caught fire and the applicant suffered loss of

his crops.

3. The applicant has been regularly requesting the concerned officials of the Nigam to

either increase the load of said T/F or segregate the DS connection from the said AP T/F

but they are not paying any heed to the request of the applicant.

4. It is settled law and according to sale circular, guidelines and regulations of the Nigam,

no domestic connection can be given on AP line but the Nigam has violated their own

instructions and guidelines and provided the DS connections from the above said T/F.

Besides this the electricity wire are very low lying approximately at the height of 6 feet

along with the road leading to Depal from Ramayan. The applicant has genuine

apprehension of danger to the life and property of the passersby as well as for the

applicant.

It is, therefore, requested either to enhance/increase the capacity of the said T/F or

segregate/shift the DS connections from the above said T/F and also to mend the wire to avoid

any accident. Any other relief to which the applicant is found entitled be also granted in his

favour.



of the case. The proceedings held at Hisar on 07.06.2017. The consumer and the representative of

sub-office were present. The representative of sub-office stated that due to late receipt of

complaint, his office could not prepare the reply in time. The sub-office representative admitted

before the Forum that there exist some domestic connections from the T/F installed on AP line

and notices to the concerned consumers has been issued for disconnection of the same. The

sub-office representative asked for next date for filing the detail reply in the matter. Request

allowed with the direction to file the status of action taken on all the three points raised by the

consumer in his complaint i.e. voltage level on the tube well of complainant, removal of un-

authorized domestic connections and strengthening of loose wires.

Further proceedings held at Hisar on 11.07.17, the complainant was not present. JE

incharge of Umra Sub Office appeared before Forum and filed reply through Nodal Office vide

No.2398 dated 10..07.2017 stating that deposit estimate under MPLAD scheme for providing

domestic connection to Dhani Sube Singh has been prepared/approved and a reference has

been made to ADC office vide memo No.1470 dated 07.09.16 for providing funds under

MPLAD. As and when the funds are received, a new transformer for domestic supply shall be

installed and grievance of the complainant shall be redressed.

After perusal of records and hearing the parties, the Forum observed that the earlier the

sub office informed the Forum that the problem of low voltage to the complainant’s premises is

attributable to unauthorized shifting of domestic connection from domestic area of village to

Dhani (field area) and notices for removal of these unauthorized connections have been issued

by the sub office. The reply filed by the sub office during hearing held on 11.07.17 is entirely

different and no status regarding action taken on unauthorized shifting and tightening of loose

wires as per proceedings held on 07.06.2017 has been filed.

The JE incharge of Umra sub office requested for adjournment of the case for filing

detailed revised reply in the matter on the next date. The request allowed with the direction to

file final action taken report on or before next date failing which the case shall be proceeded and

decided as per available records before this Forum.

The proceeding of the case held at Hisar on 11.08.2017. The complainant and

respondent JE Incharge of Umra S/Office were present. The respondent filed revised reply

through Nodal Officer vide No.2468 dated 8.8.2017 informing therein that site of connection

visited with Sh. Karam Bir Singh JE, staff and police force for removing the unauthorized

connections connected with the T/F (TWC of Sh. Narender Singh) on 5.8.2017. However, the

connections could not be disconnected due to production of Stay Order by the affected

consumers of the village. A copy of Orders of the Hon’ble ACJ Hansi dated 29.7.2017 also been

produced alongwith the written statement.

After perusal of the records of the case file and hearing the parties the Forum observed

that :-

1. The respondent office kept his stand changing before the Forum in the reply filed

from time to time. No efforts have been made by the respondent with regard to

tightening of loose wires at site as per earlier orders of the Forum.

2. No action was taken regarding removal of unauthorized connections during the

period 30.05.2017 to 29.07.2017 till grant of stay by the court on 29/07/2017.

Keeping in view the above facts and the with a view to redress the original grievance

of the complainant regarding low voltage at his tubewell on account of unauthorized connections

through the T/F, the Forum decides that the capacity of the transformer installed at the tubewell

of complainant may be augmented as per load and expenditure involved in the augmentation be

recovered from the complaint centre staff, JE incharge of the feeder and office incharge after

conducting detailed enquiry in the matter as the unauthorized connections cannot be removed

due to stay granted by the court. Case is closed. Both the parties to bear their own cost.
















Date of Hearing: 23.06.2017, 21.07.17 & 31.08.2017 Date of Order: 05.09.2017 Before the Forum for Redressal of Consumer Grievances, DHBVN.

Present:- K.D.Bansal, Member Technical-cum-Chairman Rajesh Sharma, Member Accounts

In the matter of complaint of Sh. Ram Kumar S/o Sh. Toda Ram, Village, Shahpur Aval

(Mandi), Narnaul regarding shifting of HT line passing over the house.


V/s

1. Xen/Op. Division, DHBVN, Narnaul.

2.SDO/Op. S/U Sub-Division, DHBVN, Narnaul.


Appearance:-

For Complainant: 1.Present. For the Respondent: 1. Nodal Officer/CGRF, DHBVN,Hisar.

2. Respondent SDO



ORDER

Sh. Ram Kumar S/o Sh. Toad Ram, Village, Shahpur Aval (Mandi), Narnaul has got an

electricity connection bearing A/C No. 802 under SDO/Op. S/U Sub-Division, DHBVN, Narnaul, hence


The complainant has filed the present complaint stating therein that an HT line is passing over

his house. The broken conductor fell on his roof many times causing danger to life and property. He

further stated that an iron pole is erected right adjacent to his wall and in rainy seasons live current

passes through this pole for which he has complaint many times to SDO & SE but no action has been

taken. The consumer requested this Forum to get his grievance redressed by shifting of pole/line.


both the parties were asked to appear before the Forum on 23.06.2017 at Narnaul for hearing of the

case.

The proceedings held at Narnaul on 23.06.2017. The consumer and respondent SDO were

present. The SDO submitted reply through Nodal Officer/CGRF, vide his memo No. 872 dated

23.06.2017, stating that the complaint was received in his office only on 22.06.2017, hence the site

could not be checked. The SDO requested to allow next date for filing of written reply/site checking

report. Request allowed. The case is adjourned to next date i.e. 21.07.2017.

The proceeding held at Narnaul on 21.07.17. The respondent SDO submitted written reply

through Nodal Officer vide No.1457 dated 21.07.17 stating that the site has been checked and found

that 11 KV line of Mandi feeder is passing from the corner of house and rail pole is existing in the wall.

There is path of neighbor along the house of the complainant. If the line is shifted in the path incoming

side line behind the premises of complainant will cross over the house.

The complainant was not present. The representative of SDO during oral submission informed

that the Right of way for shifting of pole vis-a-vis technical feasibility is not available at site to shift the

existing pole as per the complaint.

As the complainant was not present, the Forum decides to give a final opportunity to the

complainant to argue the case as per site checking report of SDO. The case is adjourned to the next

date for final hearing.

The proceedings of the case held at Narnaul on 31.08.17. The complainant and respondent

SDO were present. The SDO reiterated his stand that shifting of existing pole and line is not technically

feasible as no right of way is available and the complainant has constructed the house afterwards

ignoring the proximity of the line. The shifting is only possible by rerouting the line for which deposit

estimate is to be prepared. The SDO also placed on record a copy of letter No.2013 dated 31.8.17

stating that the requisite estimate for Rs.349967.00 has been framed for shifting of HT line and notice

for deposit of estimated amount has been issued vide memo No.2002 dated 29.8.17 and work shall be

completed after depositing the estimated amount. The complainant was present and he informed that

he is unable to deposit estimated amount being beyond his means and requested for shifting of line at

Nigam cost.

After perusal of records and hearing the parties the Forum finds that the HT line and pole were

existing and the complainant has constructed the house afterwards. There is no right of way/technical

feasibility available as confirmed by SDO incharge as such the forum decides to dispose of the

complaint accordingly. No cost on either side. Case is closed. If the petitioner is not satisfied with the decision of CGRF, he has the right to file an appeal before

the competent authority 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-2016.

File be consigned to record. Given under our hands on this day of 5th September 2017.

(K.D.Bansal) (Rajesh Sharma)

Member Technical-cum-Chairman Member/Accounts




Date of Hearing: 23.06.2017, 21.07.17 & 31.08.2017 Date of Order : 05.09.2017 Before the Forum for Redressal of Consumer Grievances, DHBVN.

Present:-

K.D.Bansal, Member Technical-cum-Chairman Rajesh Sharma, Member Accounts

In the matter of complaint of Sh. Raja Ram S/o Sh. Kundan Lal, Village, Gadaniya, P.O

Bairawas, Mohindergarh regarding removal of poles/line unauthorizedly erected in his land.


V/s


2.SDO/Op. S/U Sub-Division, DHBVN, Mohindergarh.


Appearance:-


For the Respondent: 1. Nodal Officer/CGRF, DHBVN, Hisar. 2.SDO/Op. S/U Sub-Divn., DHBVN, Mohindergarh. 3. Sh. Ashok Kumar of Village Gadania(M.Garh)



ORDER

Sh. Raja Ram S/o Sh. Kundan Lal, Village, Gadaniya, P.O. Bairawas, Mohindergarh has got an

electricity connection bearing A/C No. N22BW-532611 under SDO/Op. S/U Sub-Division, DHBVN,

Mohindergarh, hence this Forum has jurisdiction to hear the complaint.

The complainant has filed the present complaint stating therein that his land falls in Rajasthan

State. Near to this, the agriculture connection A/C No. N22/BW-532611 of Sh. Sohan Lal S/o Sh. Het

Ram, Village, Gadania, P.O. Bairawas, Distt., Mohindergarh exists. Initially this AP connection was

connected to 100 KVA T/F SOP Sh. Jhunda Ram S/o Sh. Mam Chand, Village Gadania but now the

connection shifted to 63 KVA T/F SOP Naurang Lal S/o Sh. Chhabil Ram, Village, Gadania without any

approval from the DHBVN and by digging fresh bore well by Sh. Sohan Lal. Sh. Sohan Lal has

erected poles in his land which is situated in Rajasthan State un-authorizedly which is causing

disruption to his agriculture activities. The complainant requested to get the poles and lines un-

authorizedly erection in his land removed. The complaint was forwarded to the Nodal Officer for filing the written reply of the Nigam and


case.

The proceedings held at Narnaul on 23.06.2017. The consumer and respondent SDO were

present. The SDO stated that he has joined recently and needs some time to verify the records and

submit the detailed written reply in the matter. The request of the SDO allowed and case adjourned to

the next date i.e. 21.07.2017 with the direction to the SDO to file detailed statement along with site

checking report with photographs on the next date.

The proceedings held at Narnaul on 21.07.17. The complainant and respondent SDO were

present. No written statement/site checking report filed by the SDO. It was stated that the records of

the case being old one are not available in the Sub Divn. The respondent SDO requested the Forum to

allow time upto 24.07.17 to inspect the site the complainant and take action on the grievance of the

complainant accordingly. The complainant reiterated that the connection has been shifted

unauthorizedly and requested this Forum to get the action taken on his complaint including removal of

the poles installed in his land and other action for unauthorized shifting of the tubewell connection by

the other party in connivance with the officials of DHBVN.

No status report has been filed by the SDO upto 27.07.17. The inaction on the part of SDO has

been noted by the Forum and a final opportunity is given to place all the records/checking/action taken

reports before the Forum by the next date failing which the case shall be decided ex-parte based on

the available records.

The proceedings of case held at Narnaul on 31.08.2017. The complainant, respondent SDO

and one Sh. Ashok Kumar of village Gadania with whom the dispute has been raised by the

complainant, were present. The respondent SDO filed statement vide No.8475 dated 31.08.17 stating

that the connection of Sh. Sohan Lal s/o Sh. Het Ram account No.BW-53/2611 was released on

30.08.89. This connection was initially released in the name of Sh.Kundal Lal s/o Sh.Het Ram on

30.04.1976. The TWC in the name of Sh.Naurang Lal s/o Sh.Chhabila Ram Vil. Gadania was released

on 15.10.89. Further, the TWC to Sh.Jhunda Ram s/o Sh.Mam Chand of Vil Gadania was also

released on 15.10.89. It is further stated that the labour visited the site for shifting of line on 31.07.2017

but the work could not be done due to crops standing in the fields. The labour again visited on 2.8.17

for shifting of line but one Sh.Ashok Kumar objected to the shifting though the line was to be shifted

parallel to canal where there is right of way and no crops nor any dispute on this route. The material is

already lying at site and the work shall be done after the crop season is over.

The Forum observed that the TWC of Sh. Sohan Lal s/o Sh.Het Ram was released earlier to

the TWC of Sh.Naurang Lal and Sh.Jhunda Ram and as such connection of Sh. Sohan Lal s/o sh.Hem

Ram cannot be connected to the T/F of Sh. Naurang Lal. Thus the unauthorized shifting of TWC of

Sh.Sohan Lal is done by the officials of Licensee.

Sh. Ashok Kumar of Vil Gadania with whom the dispute has been raised by the compliant in the

first instance was present and deposed before the Forum that he has no objection in case the line is

shifted parallel to the canal. The complainant was also agreed to the proposal of shifting of line parallel

to canal and the SDO also confirmed the technical feasibility vis a vis right of way on the route is

available.

After perusal of record in the case file and hearing all concerned parties in this case, the Forum

decides to dispose of the complaint with the direction to the respondent SDO to re-route the line as

suggested by him and agreed by both the contending parties at Nigam cost as the unauthorized

shifting of TWC Sh. Sohan Lal was done by the officials of Licensee in first instance, within a period of

20 days. The matter is unauthorized shifting may be enquired at the end of Licensee and suitable

action be taken accordingly. Case is closed. Parties to bear their own cost.








Regulations-2016.

File be consigned to record. Given under our hands on this day of 5th September, 2017.



FORUM FOR REDRESSAL OF CONSUMER GRIEVANCES DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM D-BLOCK, Ground Floor, Vidyut Sadan, Vidyut Nagar, Hisar-125 005 Telephone No. 01662-223081 (website: www.dhbvn.com) (e-mail ID: [email protected]) ___________________________________________________________ Case No. DH/CGRF-1780/2017 Date of Institution: 16.06.2017 Date of Hearing: 07.07.2017 & 8.8.2017 Date of Order : 9.8.2017


Present:-




In the matter of complaint of M/S Inuds Tower Ltd. Shop No.4, Shopping Centre

Faridabad through Sh. Deepak Kumar, Energy Controller in the matter of excess

charging on account of wrong application of multiplying factor.


V/s

1. Xen/Op. DHBVN, Old Faridabad. 2.SDO/Op. Mathura Road DHBVN, Faridabad.


Appearance:-

For Complainant: 1.Representative. For the Respondent: 1.None from Nodal Officer, CGRF, DHBVN,

2. SDO/Op. Mathura Road DHBVN, Faridabad.

.



ORDER

M/S Inuds Tower Ltd. Shop No.4, Shopping Centre Faridabad has got an electricity

connection bearing A/C No. 3940450000 under SDO/Op. Mathura Road DHBVN, Faridabad, hence this Forum has jurisdiction to hear the complaint.

The complainant has filed the present complaint (through Sh. Deepak Kumar, Energy Controller) stating therein that:

(1) Excess billing made against account No. 3940450000 in the name of Indus Tower.

(2) They received the accumulated bill of Rs.2554650.00 for the period March-2014 to March-

2017 for which load details/justification have been given by the Licensee (3) Considering the 30.0 KW load at their premises, the bill of Rs/25.54 lacs is on higher side.

The complainant requested this Forum that the excess charges levied in their account be

withdrawn by correcting the bill as per actual consumption.



The proceedings held at Faridabad on 07.07.2017. The representative of the consumer Sh.

Deepak Kumar and respondent SDO were present. The SDO filed written reply through Nodal

Officer vide his No.1166 dated 07.07.17 stating that the billing in the consumer account has been done as per actual consumption and there is no excess billing. As per billing from 21.03.14 to

02.02.17, revised bill by the system has been prepared. All the details have been shown and multiplying factor has been applied correctly as six. Sanctioned load of the consumer is 12.0 kw but

actual connected load was found much more i.e. 25.08-26.0 kw in M&P checking. A copy of the M&P checking report and detailed calculations of charging of Rs.25.54 lacs has also been placed on record by respondent SDO.

The written submissions of the SDO were filed after concluding the hearing at Faridabad.

The Forum therefore, decides that the reply & other documents filed by the respondent SDO may be

shared with the complainant. The case is adjourned to next date i.e. 08.08.2017. The Nodal Officer is to ensure that the written submission of SDO in the case is provided to the complainant for arguing the case on the next date accordingly.

The proceedings of case were held at Faridabad on 8.8.2017. The representative of complainant and respondent SDO were present. The representative of complainant was asked by the Forum to file rejoinder if any, on the reply of respondent SDO in the matter. The complainant

however, did not file any written rejoinder. The complainant though agreed to the version of the SDO that the meter working is OK and the consumption shown in the bills tallies with the readings of the

meter at site he, however, insisted that the consumption recorded in a particular period is not

commensurate with the corresponding or past consumption and there is some error in preparation of the bills for this period. No document/argument on the facts in support of the claim were produced

before the Forum. The respondent SDO reiterated his reply and argued that there is no dispute. The meter is working OK and bills have been raised as per actual consumption recorded at site and the

complaint is liable to be rejected.


that there is no merit in the complaint as the bills have been prepared as per actual consumption and meter working also declared OK by the M&P wing of the Licensee. Therefore, the complaint is disposed of in terms of reply of SDO. The case is closed. Both the parties to bear their own cost.








Date of Hearing: 23.06.2017, 21.07.2017 & 31.08.2017 Date of Order: 6.09.2017


Present:-



In the matter of complaint of Sh. Hariom Din Dayal Sharma, Mohalla Vaidhwara, Bawal,

Rewari regarding reconnection of electricity connection.


V/s

1. Xen/Op. Division, DHBVN, Dharuhera.

2.SDO/Op. Sub-Division, DHBVN, Bawal.


Appearance:-



2.SDO/Op. Sub-Divn., DHBVN, Bawal.



ORDER

Sh. Hariom Din Dayal Sharma, Mohalla Vaidhwara, Bawal, Rewari has made the

present complaint stating that the electricity connection installed at shop No. 3/321, Sir Chhotu

Ram Chowk, Bawal, Distt., Rewari has been disconnected on 30.03.2017 by the SDO/Op. Sub-

Division, DHBVN, Bawal on the basis of request made by another party. The complainant

stated that he has already paid the bills up to March, 2017 and there is no valid ground for

disconnection of electricity supply and requested for restoration of the electricity supply citing his

old age, financial condition, disruption in business activities, as the shop is only mean of

livelihood and extreme weather conditions.


and both the parties were asked to appear before the Forum on 23.06.2017 at Rewari for


The proceedings held at Rewari on 23.06.2017. The consumer and respondent SDO


dated 23.06.2017, stating therein that as per record, the account No. BR-21/0540-A is in the

name of Neha Rao D/o Sh. Rishal Singh. A sum of Rs.14507/- was outstanding on account of

defaulting amount in the month of March, 2017 and consumer paid Rs.4000/- as part payment

on dated 15.03.2017. Thereafter consumer i.e. Neha Rao submitted a consent in his office for

disconnection. Final bill for amounting to Rs.12500/- was raised to consumer after verification

of final reading of meter and the same was paid by the consumer on 21.03.2017. The

connection was disconnected vide PDCO No. 54/493 dated 21.03.2017 and affected on

30.03.2017. As per record, Sh. Hariom Din Dayal Sharma is not consumer of A/C No. BR-

21/0540-A and reconnection cannot be affected being disconnected on consumer request.

The consumer and his representative were present and argued that disconnection of

power supply to the premises is illegal and insisted for immediate restoration of supply. It was

argued that they are legally occupying the premises/the premises belong to them and have all

the papers in support of their claim which they would produce before the Forum on the next

date. They also requested the Forum to adjourn the case to the next date enabling them to

produce the ownership papers.

Request allowed. The case is adjourned to the next date i.e. 21.07.2017. Both the

parties are directed to remain present on the next date along with the documents in support of

their respective claims.

The proceedings held at Rewari on 21.07.2017. The respondent SDO was present. The

complainant was not present nor did any representative attend the hearing on his behalf. The

complainant was contacted on telephone and it was informed that being unwell the complainant

cannot attend the proceedings of the case on 21.07.2017. In the interest of justice the last

opportunity is given to the complainant to appear before the Forum on next date of hearing at

Rewari on 25.08.2017.

The proceedings of the case held at Rewari on 31/08/2017. The complainant and

respondent SDO were present. The complainant was asked to submit the ownership proof of

the premises as per last hearing. The complainant submitted a copy of the affidavit dated

25/11/2011 executed by Neha Rao daughter of Rishal Singh r/o Village Bolni tehsil: Rewari to

the effect that:

1. Her shop No. 3/321 situated at Sir Chhotu Ram Chowk Bawal and purchased by

her from Nagar Palika Bawal in auction has been sold to Hari Om Sharma S/o

Deen Dayal Sharma in July, 2011 and sale proceeds received.

2. The buyer may get the shop transferred in his name/other person’s name from

Municipality as per laws/bylaws for which she has no objections whatsoever.

3. After July, 2011, the responsibility for payment of rent of shop Rs. 15500/- to the

municipality and electricity bills shall be of the buyer.

The complainant also produced the receipt of electricity bill and water charges bill for

the said shop for the month of 3/2017 and 2/2017 respectively.

However, no proof of ownership/change of name of the shop in the name of

complainant submitted before the Forum.

The main contention taken by the complaint during the course of hearing was that

the disconnection of the power supply to the premises has been done fraudulently and the

signature of Neha Rao on the request for disconnection submitted before the respondent SDO

are fake. The complainant claimed that actually no disconnection request has been made by

Neha Rao. The complainant also insisted the Forum to call for Neha Rao for verification of

signature in support of his claim.

The respondent SDO deposed that his office acted as per advice of the owner of the

shop registered with the Nigam and in terms of the extent instructions of the Nigam.

After examining the records in the case file and hearing the parties particularly the

insistence of the claimant that this is a case of fraud perpetuated in connivance with the staff of

the sub division of Licensee, the Forum decides that the case may be investigated by the

Vigilance Wing of the Licensee and further action taken accordingly as this Forum has no

criminal jurisdiction.

The case is closed from this Forum. No cost on either side.









Ombudsman and Consumer Advocacy) Regulations-2016. File be consigned to record.

Given under our hands on this day of 6th September 2017.





Present:-




In the matter of complaint of M/S Hutchison Essar FCA-536 Block-C Faridabad,

account No. 3362640000 through Sh. Deepak Kumar, energy controller in the matter of



V/s

1. Xen/Op. DHBVN, Old Faridabad. 2.SDO/Op. Sub Divn.No.4, DHBVN, Faridabad.


Appearance:-

For Complainant: 1.Representative. For the Respondent: 1.None from Nodal Officer, CGRF, Hisar

2.Representative of SDO/Op. Sub Divn.No.4, DHBVN, Faridabad.



ORDER

M/S Hutchison Essar FCA-536 Block-C Faridabad, has got an electricity connection

bearing A/C No. 3362640000 hence this Forum has jurisdiction to hear the complaint.


Controller) stating therein that excess charging amounting to Rs.42031.00 was made in their

account for the month of January 2017 which they have paid under protest. The complainant

requested this Forum that the excess charges levied in their account be withdrawn.




The proceedings held at Faridabad on 07.07.2017. The representative of the consumer,

Sh. Deepak Kumar and respondent SDO were present. The SDO filed written statement vide

No.1389 dated 07.07.2017 through Nodal Officer stating that a list of unmatched cheques was

received from the office of FA/HQ DHBVN through XEN old Faridabad and based on these

details the amount of Rs.42031.00 was debited to the consumer account vide SC&AR

No.2632/R206 being unmatched item which was deposited by the complainant against energy

bill vide Cheque No.32991 dated 05.03.2012 as appeared in the list. A copy of reply was

handed over to the complainant who was not satisfied and decided to argue the case. The

complainant argued that he made the payment through on-line mode and shown a copy of

screen shot.

The Forum after hearing both the parties advised the complainant to produce a proper

document in support of his claim of deposit of the amount i.e. copy of bank statement from

where the amount of Rs.42031.00 has been debited so as to decide the complaint accordingly

on merits.

The proceedings of the case held at Faridabad on 8.8.2017. The representative of

complainant and Comml. Asstt. of (OP) S/D No.4 Faridabad was present. The representative of

complainant was asked to produce the copy of bank statement from which the amount in

dispute Rs.42031.00 was debited in support of his claim. The representative of complainant

however, expressed his inability to produce the bank statement at this stage and insisted that

the amount has been charged twice by the respondent Nigam. The representative of S/Divn.

reiterated his earlier reply already on record.

After going through the record in the case file and hearing both the parties, the Forum

observed that the complainant has not proved that the amount in dispute has been charged

/realized twice as such finds no merit in the complaint and decides to dispose of the same in

terms of reply of SDO. The 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







Date of Hearing: 21.07.2017 & 31.08.2017 Date of Order : 05.09.2017


Present:-



In the matter of complaint of Sh. Ram Chhal, s/o Sh. Dharam Chand Village Dhokia , PO

Bodia Kamalpur, ( Rewari ) regarding restoration of supply.


V/s


2. SDO/Op. S/D DHBVN, Palhawas.


Appearance:-



2. Respondent SDO



ORDER

Sh. Ram Chhal, s/o Sh. Dharam Chand Village Dhokia , PO Bodia Kamalpur, ( Rewari )

has got an electricity connection bearing account No. JA-51-326 under (OP) Sub Divn Palhawas


The complainant has filed the present complaint stating that 8-10 poles of his agriculture

connection are lying broken due to wind storm and no action in the matter has been taken by

the SDO Palhawas despite several requests. The complainant requested for restoration of his

supply by connecting the line to Kishangarh AP feeder alternatively or installing new poles on

the existing line.




The proceedings held at Rewari on 21.07.17. The complainant and representative of

respondent SDO were present. The complainant argued his case in line with the written

complaint and requested the Forum to get the supply restored as he is facing hardship due to

non supply of power.

The SDO submitted written reply vide No.2282 dated 20.07.17 stating that poles of the

consumer tried to be erected on 12.07.17 but the AP consumers of the area made quarrelsome

behavior with each other and also with the contractor’s labour. The consumers wanted to take

undue benefit by link up line from Kishangarh AP feeder ( S/U S/D Rewari) which is not in his

jurisdiction. M/S Renu Electrical (contractor) filed an application in his office that due to

objections of the consumers the work could not be completed and a complaint to SHO Jatusana

to lodge the FIR against two consumers has already been sent.

During oral submissions the representative of SDO informed the Forum that there is

dispute between the farmers of the area and the work of erection of poles could not be

completed due to fear of law and order situation and the complainant also not cooperated the

contractor labour for restoration of poles at site.

The complainant denied that there was any dispute/law and order issue at the time of

erection of poles and insisted that he was not informed/contacted at the time of erection work by

the contractor labour as well as SDO. The complainant assured to extent full cooperation in

completion of the work and that there will be no dispute/law and order situation and he is fully

responsible for the same. The representative of the SDO and the consumer agreed to consult

each other and fix the date for erection of the poles. The Sub division representative assured

that the status of the completion of work shall be informed to the Forum by 24.07.2017.

No status has been informed by the SDO. The case is therefore adjourned to the next

date i.e. 25.08.2017 with the direction to SDO to file status report failing which the

penalty/compensation under Standards of Performance shall be considered and allowed by the

Forum.

The proceedings held at Rewari on 31.08.2017. The complainant and respondent SDO

were present. The SDO filed a written statement to the effect that work regarding restoration of

supply has already been completed. The complainant was present and acknowledged

completion of work.

As the grievance of the complainant has been redressed and the complainant expressed

satisfaction, the Forum decides to dispose of the complaint accordingly. Case is closed. Both

the parties to bear their own cost. File be consigned to record.






Case No. DH/CGRF-1797A/2017 Date of Institution:11.07.2017 Date of Hearing: 14.07.17 & 16.08.2017 Date of Order: 16.08.2017



In the matter of complaint of Sub Divisional Engineer, Haryana Urban Development

Authority (HUDA) Sirsa regarding wrong billing.


V/s

1 Xen/Op. Division, DHBVN, Sirsa 2 SDO (OP) City Sub-Division, DHBVN, Sirsa

…….Respondents


SDE HUDA Sirsa

For the Respondent 1 Nodal Officer/CGRF, DHBVN, Hisar 2 Comml. Asstt of SDO (OP)City DHBVN Sirsa



ORDER

Sub Divisional Engineer, Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) Sirsa has got

two electricity connections bearing A/C Nos. 1709570000 (TT-65-0949) & 11312060 (TT65-

0226) under SDO/Op. City Sub-Division, DHBVN, Sirsa, hence this Forum has jurisdiction to

hear the complaint.

The complainant has filed the present complaint (through SDE HUDA Sirsa) stating

therein that energy bills of both his connections are being raised by the respondent Nigam on

average basis instead of actual consumption recorded by the energy meters installed at site

resulting into excess charging in the bills every time. The complainant stated that he earlier

approached the Sub Divn. many times but the bills have not been corrected nor excess amount

earlier charged refunded. The complainant requested this Forum to get the energy bills correct

and excess charges levied by the Nigam refunded.



of the case.

The proceedings of the case held at Sirsa on 14.07.17. The respondent SDO and

complainant were present. The complainant argued his case in line with the written submission

and insisted that their bills are being raised on average basis in place of actual reading in the

meter at site causing inflated bill to which they are unable to pay considering the financial

position of the department. The complainant stated that he approached the concerned offices

several times in the past but no action on his grievance has been taken and bills continued to be

raised on average basis causing financial hardship to their department (HUDA) and

accumulation of disputed amount.

The Respondent SDO was present in person and informed that the complaint has been

received in his office only on the day of hearing hence detailed written submission could not be

prepared. The SDO during oral submissions however, refuted the contents of the complainant

and argued that bills to the HUDA have been raised on actual basis. He informed that previously

the bills have been prepared on average basis for some time though the meter was ok and

recording the consumption. Thus the account was overhauled as per audit half margin which is

correct. The SDO requested for time to file the written submission after consulting the record.

The complainant has raised no objection on seeking of time by the respondent SDO for filing

written submissions.

The request for adjourning the case made by SDO City Sub Division DHBVN Sirsa has

been allowed. The case is adjourned and now listed for hearing at Sirsa on 16.08.2017. Both

the parties to file written statement and rejoinder within a week’s time.

Proceedings of case held at Sirsa on 16.08.17. SDE, HUDA Sirsa and Comml. Asstt

from SDO (Op) City Sirsa were present. The complainant presented the case and brought out

the following additional facts before the Forum:-

1. The meter installed at their premises got damaged and not replaced by the

respondent Nigam in spite making written requests and average billing continued to

he made which was much higher than the actual consumptions. The complainant

argued that the it was the duty of the Nigam to replace the meter immediately after it

became defective and by non replacing the meter their department was put to

unnecessary hardship and financial loss on account of inflated bills on average basis

for a long time.

2. The average charged is on higher side and even for the period when the meter

already replaced and working correctly i.e.11/2014.

3. Excess amount debited in their account without any proper details.

The Sub Divn. representative placed on record information/charging made in the

account of consumer as required by this Forum during earlier hearing held on 14.07.2017. The

Sub Divn representative during oral submission justified the charging on the ground that the

meter of consumer remained defective during the period and he was charged for this period on

average basis as per applicable instructions and the consumer is liable to pay the legitimate

charges of the Nigam.

After examination of record and hearing both the parties, the Forum finds that this is

a case of billing on average basis during the period the meter of consumer remained defective.

The Forum however, finds some merits in the arguments put forth by the complainant.

It is decided that:

1. The account No. TT-45/949 is to be overhauled only for the period 12/2013 to

10/2014 only on the basis of the consumption recorded during the period

12/2014 to 10/2015 as the meter was actually replaced during 10-11/2014.

2. The consumption of 12/2014 taken for average charging of 12/2013 is in fact

consumption recorded during two months period i.e. 11& 12/2014. This may be

suitably apportioned for one month only.

3. Average amount charged for the month of 11/2014 is not chargeable as the

meter was working correctly during this period.

4. The amount of Rs.96921.00 reported to be charged in the account

No.1709570000 (old account No.TT-45/949) actually pertains to account another

No.TT-45/320 NDS as per details provided by the sub division as such this

amount may be withdrawn alongwith surcharged from account No. TT-45/949

and debited to respective account after verification of the facts.

No merits found in the complaint pertaining to the account No. TT-45/226 hence

no relief is granted for this account. With these directions, the case is closed. Both the




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.


appeal before the competent authority within one month from the date of receipt of the order



Electricity Ombudsman and Consumer Advocacy) Regulations-2016.






Case No. DH/CGRF-1800/2017 Date of Institution: 13.07.2017 Date of Hearing: 18.07.2017 & 22.08.2017 Date of Order : 23.08.2017



In the matter of complaint of M/S Indus Tower Ltd (through Sh. M.S.Chauhan) regarding excess

charging in the bills.


V/s

1 XEN (OP) DHBVN, Ch. Dadri 2 SDO (OP) Sub Divn, DHBVN, Atela Kalan.

…….Respondents


Present

For the Respondent 1 SDO (OP) DHBVN, Atela Kalan 2 Nodal Officer/CGRF, DHBVN, Hisar



ORDER

M/S Indus Tower Ltd. has got an electricity connection bearing A/C No. B-36-MH-21-0009K under Sub-Divn, DHBVN, Atela Kalan, hence this Forum has jurisdiction to hear the complaint.

The complainant has filed the present complaint through Sh. M.S.Chauhan, stating therein that

1. Their premises were checked on 21.11.13 and allegation of theft of energy was made vide LL-1 No.21/2092. The computation of assessment made at the load of 11.640 kw in place of actual load

of 4.0 kw at site. A sum of Rs.108902.00 on account of assessment and Rs.20000.00 on a/c of compounding was charged and deposited vide RO- 4 No.198-199/18115 on dated 27.11.13.

2. The Internal audit department framed half margin No.23/137 dated 08.04.15 for making fresh

assessment of Rs.388019.00 which was unnecessary and not accepted and charged by SDO. The Internal audit again framed half margin No.52/032 dated 23.06.16 and pointed out interest Rs.

87304.00 @ 18%. The interest proposal is total unnecessary and not chargeable. The amount has been debited in the account without any notice to the consumer and any notice of assessment under

section 126 or 135 of Elecy. Act 2003 or Show cause notice under section 6.10.4 of HERC

regulation No.29/2014.

3. The issue of theft of energy was closed and settled on 27.11.13 by depositing Rs.128903.00. Thereafter no additional demand/notice was received hence debiting of amount Rs.475323.00 in the

month of 11/2016 is against the principal of law and instructions of the Nigam. 4. The meter installed while releasing the connection was having MF of 6. This was not advised to the

billing agency and bills were prepared without MF. The consumer made payment of Rs.56719.00 from DOC to 08/2016. The Internal audit has framed half margin No.52/034 and made assessment

of Rs.147237.00 on this account without any notice or giving opportunity of hearing. 5. They have representation to the SDO but no action has been taken. The application prayed for

withdrawal of assessment of Rs.388019.00 alongwith interest of Rs.87034.00 and overhauling of

amount on account of wrong charging of MF by Audit. The complaint was forwarding to the Nodal Officer for filing reply of the Nigam and both the parties

were asked to appear before the Forum at Bhiwani on 18.07.17 for hearing of the case. The proceedings of case held at Bhiwani on 18.07.17. The complainant was not present. The SDO

(OP) Atela Kalan alongwith Nodal Officer was present. The SDO requested for another date in the case for filing the detailed reply after consulting relevant records of the case. The complainant was also not present

and being first date of hearing, request of SDO allowed and case adjourned for next date. The proceedings of the case held on 22.8.17 at Bhiwani. The complainant and respondent SDO

were present. The respondent SDO filed detailed written statement vide No.830 dated 27.07.2017 stating

that the premises of the tower was checked by Vigilance Team Rewari on 21.11.2013 before release of connection. The LL1 framed and load detected 11.640 KW. An amount of Rs.423276.00 was charged. The

representative of the tower objected before higher authority regarding the loading capacity of UPS cells. The matter discussed with higher authorities and as per available record, the higher authorities advised to

then SDO to impose penalty as per actual load. The revised assessment worked out to Rs.128209.00 on

actual load basis and deposited by Tower Co. vide RO 4 No.198-199/18115 dated 27.11.2013. Thereafter,

regular NDS connection was applied for on 19.02.2014 with load of 15.0 KW and connection was released on 29.03.15 vide SCO No.45/1451 with LT CT meter and MF-6.

The Internal audit party reviewed the matter and framed half margin No.37/123 dated 8.4.15 with the remarks that LL1 No.21/209 dated 21.11.13 has been assessed on lesser side in terms of SC 43/2007 by

reducing the load from 11.64 KW to 4.0 KW without any valid reason hence amount of Rs.388019.00 is

chargeable and the half margin charged vide SC&AR No.98/48 which remained un-posted.

During subsequent visit the Audit party prepared the half margin No.32/52 dated 23.06.2016 for

interest amounting to Rs.87304.00 @ 18% for 15 months on the original chargeable amount of

Rs.388019.00 which remained unposted. The then SDO remarked on the half margin as ‘not

chargeable’. As & when the matter come to the notice the amount was charged to the consumer

account vide SC&AR No.133/48. The third half margin No.34/52 has been framed for MF of the consumer as per CT meter ratio as

well as M&P checking report No.66/98 and the difference of consumption has been charged for Rs.147237.00 vide SC&AR No.135/48.

A copy of reply filed by SDO was provided to complainant on which rejoinder dated 21.08.17 filed by

the complainant. No new facts relating to the case have been brought out and the contents of original

complaint reiterated w.r.t. defense reply stressing for withdrawal of the amount charged on the grounds already stated in the original plaint as well as rejoinder.

Both the parties argued their case in line with the written submissions. The complainant during

arguments admitted that this is a case of theft of energy but insisted for withdrawal of assessment pointed

out by the audit. In addition the complainant argued for withdrawal of excess amount charged on account of

difference of MF from DOC to 08/2016. After examination of the records and hearing the parties, The Forum observed that the complainant

has raised following two issues for adjudication before this Forum:- 1. Withdrawal of amount pointed out by Internal audit on account of less charging of assessed

amount in theft case originally detected by the Vigilance wing of the Licensee. The incidence of the theft has been admitted by the complainant.

2. Withdrawal of the excess amount charged on account of difference of MF.

After considering the relevant facts, the Forum decides that the point raised at Sr.No.1 above pertains to theft of electricity, as also agreed by the complainant hence the forum decides not to interfere and pass any order on the issue on merits on jurisdictional ground as per clause No. 2.39 of HERC

regulation dated 29.07.2016. Regarding the issue at Sr.No.2 i.e. excess charging on account of difference of MF the Forum finds merits in the argument of the complainant and directs the respondent SDO to revise

the charging as per facts and records brought out by the complainant in his plaint within a period of 30 days. 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.


the appropriate authority 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


2016.






Present:-




In the matter of complaint of Sh. Santosh Kumar Pandit, A-52 Third Floor, FIEE

complex, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2 Faridabad in the matter of excess charging in

the bill.


V/s



Appearance:-

For Complainant: 1.Presxent. For the Respondent: 1.None from Nodal Officer, CGRF, DHBVN,

1. SDO/Op S/D Tilpat Faridabad



. ORDER

Sh. Santosh Kumar Pandit, A-52 Third Floor, FIEE complex, Okhla Industrial Area,

Phase-2 Faridabad has got an electricity connection bearing A/C No. 9227850000 under SDO/Op.

S/D DHBVN, Tilpat Faridabad, hence this Forum has jurisdiction to hear the complaint.


has not been adjusted in the subsequent bills as per actual consumption causing excess demand.

The complainant requested this Forum to get his bill corrected. The complaint was forwarded to the Nodal Officer for filing the written reply of the Nigam and


The proceedings held at Faridabad on 08.08.2017. The complainant and respondent SDO were present. The SDO filed written reply vide his No. Spl 1 dated 08.08.17 stating that the bill of

complainant has already been rectified vide SCA&R No. R-48/120 Rs. (-) 3945.00 but current bill adjustment is not shown due to bill in process and same will be reflected in the bill of 09/2017. A

copy of the reply was handed over to the complainant. The complainant was satisfied.

After going through the records in the case file and hearing both the parties, the Forum finds that the grievance of the consumer has already been redressed by respondent SDO, therefore, the

complaint is disposed of with the direction to SDO that the adjustment carried out through sundry is reflected in the next bill of consumer. The case is closed. Both the parties to bear their own cost.











Present:-




In the matter of complaint of Kranti Vikash Parishad Welfare Association, H.N.

1114/65, Sector-65, Ballabgarh (Faridabad) regarding deficiency in electrical

installations.


V/s

1. Xen/Op. DHBVN, Ballabgarh. 2.SDO/Op. City S/Divn. DHBVN, Ballabgarh.


Appearance:-


DHBVN, Hisar 2. SDO/Op City DHBVN Ballabgarh

.



ORDER

Kranti Vikash Parishad Welfare Association, H.N. 1114/65, Sector-65, Ballabgarh

(Faridabad) has filed the present complaint stating that there is poor earthing, frequent

tripping/power cuts and loose wiring all over the sector which is causing harassment to the residents

and requested the Forum to get the power related deficiencies removed from the Licensee. The complaint was forwarded to the Nodal Officer for filing the written reply of the Nigam and


the case.

The proceedings held at Faridabad on 08.08.2017. The respondent SDO was present. No one from RWA appeared. The respondent SDO filed written reply vide his No. Spl.1 dated 08.08.17

stating that LT side work in Sector 62 & 65 is under progress and will be completed within a period of 25 days. During oral submission, the respondent SDO alongwith area incharge JE also informed the

Forum the improvement works in Sector-62 are almost complete and remaining works will be completed at the earliest. With the completion of improvement works under progress, the complaints of RWA will be addressed.

After going through the records in the case file and hearing oral submissions of respondent

SDO, the Forum observed that the improvement works have already been undertaken in the Sector

by the Licensee and are under progress. The Forum, therefore, decides to dispose of complaint in terms of reply and status of works filed by the respondent SDO with the direction to file the completion report of ongoing works within a period of one month. The case is closed. Both the










DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM D-BLOCK, Ground Floor, Vidyut Sadan, Vidyut Nagar, Hisar-125 005 Telephone No. 01662-223081 (website: www.dhbvn.com) (e-mail ID: [email protected]) ___________________________________________________________ Case No. DH/CGRF-1804/2017 Date of Institution: 11.07.2017 Date of Hearing: 8.8.2017, 12.09.2017 & 10.10.17 Date of Order: 11.10.2017


Present:-




In the matter of complaint of Residents of Badhkhal Extension through Sh. Vikas

Chawla & others Faridabad (correspondence address: BE-693 Badhkhal Extension

Faridabad) in the matter of deficiency in power supply.


V/s



Appearance:-

For Complainant: 1. Sh. Vikas Chawla & others. For the Respondent: 1. Nodal Officer, CGRF, DHBVN,

2. Respondent SDO/OP.



ORDER

The residents of Badkhal Extension, Faridabad has filed the present complainant through

Sh. Vikas Chawla & others, BE-693, Badkhal Extension, Faridabad stating that there are very long

power cuts with erratic supply in their area throughout the day and night for over last 3-4 months in

the guise of theft control measure by the Deptt. The complainants requested this Forum to get their

power supply regulated in a proper manner so as to avoid harassment to the residents of the area.



the case.

The proceedings held at Faridabad on 08.08.2017. The complainants and Commercial Assitant from respondent Sub Divn. were present. The complainants presented their case by

arguing that there are long power cuts in the area of Badkhal Extension on the grounds of it being

high loss feeder. The complainants stated that there are about 80 small scale industrial units

employing huge number of labourers/workers and the erratic power supply is causing disruption in

business activities besides loss of employment without no fault of theirs as all the business units and

residents of Badkhal extension are paying their bills regularly and no resident of their area is

indulging in power theft. They are being punished due to the power supply of the feeder also

catering to the adjacent Badkhal Village where in fact, the losses are higher. The Licensee should

either separate their feeder from the affected village or to give full supply in their area otherwise. Sh.

Vikas Chawla also filed a rejoinder on behalf of the complainants on 08.08.2017 stating that:-

1. The Badkhal area is facing long and unprecedented hours of power cut since 12.04.17 and in a given day during working hours, 5-6 hours power cut is imposed and it becomes virtually impossible for small and micro units in the area to function.

2. In response to their appeal, the SDO of area mentioned that the area is in high line loss zone i.e. in the range of 35- 50% T&D losses hence the power cuts are imposed which is not justified as the residents are bonafide consumers and paying their dues in times.

3. The losses mentioned by SDO are probably from Badkhal village which is not at all part of their locality and since the feeder for both Badkhal extension and Badkhal village are same, the residents of Badkhal extension are facing power cuts for the last 4-5 months due to no fault of theirs. This position has been verified by the JE incharge of area and SDO (OP) S/D No.4 during their inspection on 18.07.17.

4. That their power supply be changed from Badkhal feeder to SGM Nagar feeder for which HT line extension has to be done by the Deptt which is approx. 350-400 meters. A sketch of the area with HT line feeder is also placed on records.

During oral submission before the Forum, the representatives of Badkhal extension

requested for uninterrupted power supply at least from 9.00 -6.00 hrs in the area so as to carry out

business activities unhindered.

The Comml Assistant appeared from the sub division placed on records a written reply from

SDO vide No.63 dated 8.8.17 stating therein that Badkhal feeder emanating from 66 KV S/Stn NH-3

is under high loss feeder i.e. T&D loss range of 35-50% hence is subject to power cuts as per instructions of higher authority. The Forum asked the representative of S/D to produce the copy of

instructions which he could not produce. The Forum further asked the representative to call SDO or

JE incharge to explain the technical aspects of case. The SDO or JE I/C did not appear before the

Forum even after giving the opportunity. The Forum asked the representative of S/D to place on

record the technical feasibility/alternative plan for supply to the Badkhal extension so as to relieve

the residents of the hardship. But even after waiting for two days no plan/technical feasibility has

been submitted by the respondent S/Divn. This shows that the respondents are not serious towards

resolving the genuine grievances of their consumers.

Considering the hardship of the residents who appears to be genuinely paying customers of

the Licensee and particularly the employment prospects of the workers employed in the small and

micro industrial units, numbering about 80 located in the area of Badkhal extension as brought by

the representatives of Badkhal extension and high losses said to be attributable to the adjacent

village, the Forum decides to pass an Interim Order dated 10/08/2017 directing the respondent SDO to ensure uninterrupted power supply to the Badkhal extension area during 9.00 am to 6.00 pm

without disturbing the total number of hours of power cuts which may be shifted to other hours of the

day of 24 hours. The case was adjourned to next date.

The proceedings of the case were held at Faridabad on 12.09.2017. The complainants and

respondent SDO were present. The complainant reiterated their grievance and also raised the issue

of non compliance of Interim Order passed by this Forum on 10.08.2017 by respondent SDO. The

SDO filed before the Forum vide memo No.279 dated 11.09.17 that the matter regarding

rescheduling of PRM has already been referred to SE/SO DHBVN Hisar on 23.08.17 and approval is

yet awaited. The SDO further informed that the alternative supply route to the Badhkhal extension as

suggested by complainants from SGM feeder is not technically feasible. Complainants have refuted

the arguments of respondent SDO and insisted that alternative supply can be provided from SGM

feeder which is only 300 meters away from their locality.

After hearing parties, the Forum decides that:- 1. A committee of technical officers headed by Nodal Officer CGRF Hisar alongwith SDO

(OP) Mathura Road Faridabad is constituted in terms of Regulation No.2.44 of HERC notification dated 29.07.16. The committee shall visit the site and suggests to the Forum the feasibility of alternative supply route to Badhkhal extension from SGM feeder or otherwise within a period of 10 days. SDO OP Sub Divn. No.4 Faridabad shall extend all requisite cooperation and logistics to the Committee for completion of their work within stipulated period.

2. The Forum further decides that the matter of non compliance of its Interim Order dated 10.08.2017 be taken up with the Nigam management and thereafter to HERC for initiating penalty proceedings under Section 142 of Electricity Act-2003.Case is adjourned to next date.

Proceedings held at Faridabad on 10.10.2017. The representative of complainant and respondent SDO were present. Nodal Officer of CGRF placed on record a copy of report of the

Committee constituted by this Forum on 12.09.17 to suggest feasibility of alternative supply route to

Badhkhal extn. The report states that the site was checked by all the three technical officers in the

presence of complainants on 20.09.17 and during survey it was observed that the load in Badhkhal

extension feeder is mixed load and it is not possible to segregate load of industry and others

consumers. In the Badhkhal extension, the industries are running in house/plots and that area is not

an industrial area. Power cut of six hours implemented as per loss basis. The suggestion of industry

consumers for connecting area from other nearby feeder supplying power to SGM Nagar is also not

possible because maximum load at 11 KV Sector 48 feeder goes 250 amp in the month of 7/17.

Load of area which was shown by complainants is approx. 80 amp hence it is not technically

possible/feasible to connect that load of complainant to the existing 11 KV Sector 48 feeder.

It was also placed on record by respondent SDO and Nodal officer that revised PRM in

the Badhkhal extn. has been implemented by the Nigam management by providing uninterrupted power supply in the area from 9.00 AM to 6.00 PM in compliance of Interim Order of this Forum

dated 10.08.17. Representative of complainants also acknowledged revised PRM and express their

satisfaction over the action taken by Licensee Nigam on their demand.

After considering the facts of the case, report of technical committee and hearing the

parties the Forum noted that main grievance of complainant regarding power supply in the area

during day hours has already been addressed by the Licensee Nigam by rescheduling the PRM.

Alternative supply route is not technically feasible. The Forum therefore, decides to dispose of the

complaint in terms of Interim Order dated 10.08.2017 already implemented by the Licensee. Case is

closed. Both the parties to bear own cost.


Given under our hands on this day of 11th October 2017.





Date of Hearing: 21.07.17 & 31.08.2017 Date of Ordre : 05.09.2017 Before the Forum for Redressal of Consumer Grievances, DHBVN.

Present:-

K.D.Bansal, Member Technical-cum-Chairman Rajesh Sharma, Member Accounts

In the matter of complaint of M/S Indus Tower Ltd. (site at Sihor Kanina) regarding billing

problem.


V/s


2.SDO/Op. Sub-Division, DHBVN, Kanina.


Appearance:-

For Complainant: 1.Representative

For the Respondent: 1. Nodal Officer/CGRF, DHBVN,Hisar. 2.SDO/Op. Sub-Divn., DHBVN, Kanina.



ORDER

M/S Indus Tower Ltd. (site at Sihor Kanina) has got an electricity connection bearing A/C No.

N24CC210085 under SDO/Op. Sub-Division, DHBVN, Kanina, hence this Forum has jurisdiction to

hear the complaint.

The complainant has filed the present complaint stating therein that 1 The meter of the connection was checked vide LL-1 No.06/182 dated 27.10.15. The

meter was taken to M&T lab for the checking of the meter on 25.02.16. The meter was found running slow by 66.6% due to overhauling of circuit plate. The account for the period 18.01.13 to 27.10.15 is overhauled for the slow running of the meter. The total consumption assessment of the period is calculated from the slow running of the meter as (30448-26636)x100/33.4=11503 units. The credit is given for 3842 units and balance 7661 units are billed at the current rate of tariff applicable from 01.04.15. The assessment is made for Rs.64735.00 and debited the same in the consumer account in 07/2016 without giving any opportunity to the consumer to show cause as required under Section 6.10.4 of HERC Regulation 29/2014. The credit given from the assessment of 3482 units is not correct. The actual consumption billed during the period should have been given the credit. Further the tariff on the left over units should have been applied for the relevant period of time and not the current rate of tariff.

2 The consumer was provisionally billed for 16640 units during the period from 2/2013 to 9/2013 at the rate of 2080 units per month. The consumer was provisionally billed for 975 units per month from 10/2013 to 08/14. The a/c for the period was overhauled and 34320 units were assessed for the period @ 3120 units per month. A sum of Rs.174602.00 was debited in the consumer a/c in the month of 05/15. The amount was debited in the consumer a/c without giving any opportunity to the consumer to show cause as per Section 6.10.4 of HERC Regulation 29/2014.

3 The consumer was billed for 975 provisional units per month from 09/2014 to 07/15. The a/c for the period 01/14 to 04/15 was overhauled on the base consumption of 1560 units per month. The additional 4095 units were assessed for Rs. 30998.00. The total 10725+4095=14820 provisional units were billed during the period from 09/2014 to 07/15.

4 The a/c for the period 08/15 to 03/16 was overhauled on the basis of three months consumption recorded by the new meter which is against the provisions of the Section 6.9.1.2(b) of HERC Regulation 29/2014. The base consumption was selected as 2598 units per month. The amount of Rs.157879.00 was debited in the consumer a/c in 05/16 without giving any opportunity to the consumer to show cause as required under Section 6.10.4 of HERC Regulation 29/2014. The account overhauling units i.e. 2598x4=11392 units were charged for the period 08/15 to 11/15. Further the account overhauling 2598x5=12290 units are charged for the period 12/15 to 04/16 against actual recorded 10310 units. The a/c of consumer for the period 08/15 to 04/16 should have been overhauled on the basis of consumption recorded from 08/16 to 04/17 as per Section 6.9.1.2(b) of HERC Regulation 29/2014. The base consumption should have been 39318 (final reading of 04/17)-10314 (initial reading of 08/15=19184 units. The assessment has however been made for 11392+12290=23682 units. There is excess assessment of 23682-1918=4198 units which needs to be refunded back to the consumer.

5 In the final overhauling of the account after getting the meter checked in M&T lab on 27.10.15 the total chargeable units from 18.01.13 to 27.10.15 are 11503 units. The consumer has however been billed 16640 units from 02/13 to 09/13, 34320 units from 10/13 to 08/14, 14820 units from 09/14 to 07/15 and 11392 units from 08/15 to 01/15.The total billed consumption during the period was 77172 units. There was excess billing 77172-11503=65669 units. The consumer instead of giving credit of these excess billed units has been charged 7661 units more for Rs.64735.00 in 07/16. The debit of this amount is wrongly calculated and is totally unnecessary.

6 They had represented to SDO (OP) DHBVN Kanina, XEN (OP) Mohindergarh and SE (OP) DHBVN Narnaul vide our No. Spl.26/EB-26/Bills/17 dated 05.04.17 but were not heard. The grievance was not redressed

7 It is prayed that the Nigam be directed to withdraw the assessment from our account which have been debited without following the procedure prescribed in Section 6.10.4 and 6.10.5 of HERC Regulation 29/2014. It is further prayed to direct the Nigam to withdraw the assessment of Rs.64735.00 from our account which has wrongly been calculated by applying the wrong tariff and without giving the credit of billing already made during the period of assessment. It is also prayed to direct the Nigam to withdraw the assessment of Rs.157879.00 and make the assessment of the defective period as per provisions of HERC Regulation 29/2014



case.

The proceedings held at Narnaul on 21.07.2017. The representative of complainant and

respondent SDO were present. The representative of complainant was asked to present his case. The

representative, however, could not present the case. The SDO stated that the complaint received late

in his office and requested for another date in the case to file the point-wise written statement. Request

allowed.

The Forum further observed that the similar complaint has been processed and decided under

case No.1322/2016 vide Order dated 17.06.2016 by this Forum. The Forum therefore, directs the

complainant to revise the petition and properly list out the prayers excluding the points /grievance

already covered under the aforementioned order dated 17.06.16 with a copy to the respondent SDO

also so that written reply is submitted by respondent SDO on this specific grievances on or before next

date accordingly..

The case is adjourned to the next date i.e. 25.08.17 with the direction to both the parties to file

the reply /rejoinder within a week’s time. The complainant may also be informed about the

proceedings.

The proceeding held at Narnaul on 31.08.2017. The representative of complainant and

respondent SDO were present. The complainant could not bring out any specific relief as well as

additional points which were not already covered under the earlier decision of this Forum in case

No.1322 dated 17.06.2016, in his rejoinder filed vide reference No.Spl.09/CGRF-3/DHBVN/17 dated

11.08.2017. The Forum therefore decides to dispose of the present complaint in terms of the decision

already pronounced in case No.1322/2016. No cost on either side. Case is closed.



(K.D.Bansal) (Rajesh Sharma) Member Technical-cum-Chairman Member/Accounts



Present:-




In the matter of complaint of M/S Unitech Hygene Products, Plot No. 31/123/2/2

Village Bhukarpur, PO Machhgar, Near Veternary Hospital Ballabgarh (Faridabad)



V/s

1. Xen/Op. DHBVN, Greater Faridabad. 2.SDO/Op. S/Divn. DHBVN, Badraula.


Appearance:-


DHBVN, Hisar 2. None from Licensee

.



ORDER

M/S Unitech Hygene Products, Plot No. 31/123/2/2 Village Bhukarpur, PO Machhgar,

Near Veternary Hospital Ballabgarh (Faridabad) has got an electricity connection bearing A/C No.

DA-31-0040-L under SDO/Op. S/D DHBVN Badraula hence this Forum has jurisdiction to hear the

complaint. The complainant has filed the present complaint through Sh. Deepak Kumar Properiter

stating that theirs is a proprietorship Start up unit. In the meter installed at his premises only 30 units

of electricity has been consumed uptil now as no production has started in the unit. He got an

electricity bill from the Licensee which is issued on average basis by taking consumption of 960 units in the month of November & December 2016. The bill amount is Rs.15498.00 which is higher

compared to actual consumption. The complainant requested this Forum to get the bill corrected as per actual consumption.

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 08.08.2017 at Faridabad for hearing of the case.

The proceedings held at Faridabad on 08.08.2017. The complainant was present but the

respondent SDO was not present. The complainant presented his case by arguing that the bills

raised are not as per actual consumption and the average charged in the month of Nov. & Dec.2016 has not been adjusted in the subsequent bills raised causing hardship to him. No written reply was

filed nor any representative from the S/D was present to defend the case on behalf of Licensee despite due notice.

Keeping in view the hardship of the complainant which is a start up unit, the Forum decides

to proceed in the matter on the basis of the available records. A scrutiny of the bills of the consumer, revealed that average charged in the initial bills have not been adjusted by the Licensee. The

Forum, therefore, decides to dispose of the complaint with the direction to the respondent SDO to

adjust average charged in the month of Nov. & Dec.2016 in the next bill of the consumer. The case

is closed. Both the parties to bear their own cost.







FORUM FOR REDRESSAL OF CONSUMER GRIEVANCES DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM D-BLOCK, Ground Floor, Vidyut Sadan, Vidyut Nagar, Hisar-125 005 Telephone No. 01662-223081 (website: www.dhbvn.com) (e-mail ID: [email protected]) ___________________________________________________________ Case No. DH/CGRF-1808/2017 Date of Institution: 11.07.2017 Date of Hearing: 11.08.2017 Date of order 11.08.2017 Before the Forum for Redressal of Consumer Grievances, DHBVN.

Present:-


In the matter of complaint of Smt. Urmila Sheoran w/o Sh. Ram Sheoran, House

No.548/Sector-15A Hisar regarding allow of rebate for women consumers in the tariff.


V/s 1. XEN/Op. Division No.1, DHBVN, Hisar. 2.SDO(OP)Civil Line, DHBVN, Hisar. …………….Respondents

Appearance:-


2.SDO (OP) Civil Line Hisar



ORDER Smt. Urmila Sheoran w/o Sh. Ram Sheoran, House No.548/Sector-15A has got

an electricity connection bearing A/C No. 2206520000 under SDO (op) Civil Line Hisar hence


The complainant has filed the present complaint, stating therein that rebate @ 10 paise

per unit of electricity consumption as per instructions of Licensee is not being allowed in her bills

being woman consumer and requested this Forum for grant of admissible rebate.



of the case. The proceedings held at Hisar on 11.08.2017. The representative of consumer and

respondent SDO were present. The SDO filed written statement vide No.664-66 dated 09.08.17

stating that woman rebate of above said consumer has already been given by his office since

Jan.2016 and also produced a statement giving details of rebate from Jan.16 to June-2017. The

latest bill of the consumer was also placed on record. The requisite rebate @ 10 paise /unit was

duly reflected in the bill of consumer which was shown to the representative of consumer and

agreed by him.

After perusal of records and hearing the parties, the Forum observed that the requisite

action in the grievance of consumer has already been taken by respondent SDO. Therefore, the

Forum decides to dispose of the complaint in terms of defense reply and 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 appropriate authority 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-2016.







Present:-



In the matter of complaint of Smt. Monika Aggarwal r/o Balluwara Rewari regarding

grant of electricity connection.


V/s


2. SDO/Op. City S/D No.1, DHBVN, Rewari.


Appearance:-

For Complainant: None





ORDER

Smt. Monika Aggarwal r/o Balluwara Rewari has applied for a new electricity connection

under (OP) City Sub Divn No.1 Rewari hence this Forum has jurisdiction to hear the complaint.

The complainant has filed the present complaint stating that she applied for an electricity

connection but denied the same on account of outstanding amount against the premises. The

complainant stated that the person in whose name the connection was originally exist has got

another connection in his name bearing account No. ABSP-0855 and requested this Forum to

give direction to SDO City No.1 Rewari for releasing the connection and recovery of outstanding

arrear from concerned consumer.




The proceedings held at Rewari on 21.07.17. The representative of complainant and

SDO were present. The SDO submitted reply through Nodal Officer/CGRF, vide his memo No.

2872 dated 19.07.2017, stating therein that application No. 9510057650 dated 07.04.17 for new

connection in the name of Mrs. Monika Aggarwal under NDS category with applied load of 4 kw

is pending with this office due to defaulting amount of Rs.34527.00 in the name of Lalit Kumar

s/o Sh. Tek Chand for disconnected account No.EE-21/0910 at same shop/premises. The

amount has been transferred to another account JJ21-0955 of same consumer in the month of

06/2017 on information provided by the complainant. The due date for payment of current bill

was 17.07.17. Hence further action can be taken after expiry of grace period. It is intimated that

the file of complainant can be processed further only on recovery of defaulting amount. If

amount is not deposited either by Sh. Lalit Kumar or Mrs. Monika Aggarwal till expiry of grace

period the file may be cancelled by this office.

During oral submissions the respondent SDO informed the Forum that his office has

already initiated the action for recovery of defaulting amount from the exiting consumer. The

notice to the consumer has already been issued on 01.05.2017 which has been replied by

consumer on 12.05.17. The existing consumer’s plea in the case is that he has sold shop

alongwith all existing liabilities to Smt.Monika Aggarwal and amount is payable to the DHBVN

by Smt. Monika Aggarwal in terms of sale agreement between the parties. The SDO also

informed that the existing consumer (Sh. Lalit Kumar) is also taking objection on the proposed

transfer of defaulting amount to other connection on the grounds that the amount cannot be

recovered by the Nigam being time barred under limitation act.

The reply to the notice dated 01.05.17 submitted by the existing consumer Sh.Lalit

Kumar vide his letter dated 12.05.17 has however no mention of the amount being barred by the

limitation act as per the copy of reply placed in the case file.

The representative of complainant argued that timely action with regard to transfer of

defaulting amount to another connection of defaulted consumer is not being taken by

respondent SDO and her connection is unnecessarily held up causing harassment and financial

loss.

After taking into account and hearing both parties the Forum observed that the

respondent SDO was required to continuously raise the bills to the defaulting consumer as per

applicable Nigam instructions and in this way the provision of limitation act would not have

applied as contended by the respondent SDO during his oral submission. The forum further

observed that no timely action for recovery of defaulting amount was taken even after receipt of

the reply to the notice by the defaulting consumer on 12.05.17 till the date of hearing of the case

by this Forum on 21.07.17 which shown reluctance at the part of SDO in recovery of defaulting

amount.

The respondent SDO assured the Forum to put up the status report on the next date of

hearing and considering the same, the case is adjourned to next date for final hearing at Rewari

on 25.08.2017. Both the parties to remain present.

The proceedings of the case held at Rewari on 31.08.17. the complainant was not

present. The respondent SDO filed his statement vide No.4082 dated 31.08.17 confirming that

defaulting amount was recovered and connections stands released on 23.08.2017.

As the connection has already been released and grievance of consumer redressed the

Forum decides to dispose of the complainant accordingly. Case is closed. Both the parties to

bear their own. File be consigned to record.





Present:-




In the matter of complaint of Sh. Sudhir Kumar, H.N. 2585 Airforce Road

Jawahar Colony Faridabad regarding excess demand of ACD.


V/s

1. Xen/Op. DHBVN, NIT Faridabad. 2.SDO/Op. S/Divn. J.Colony DHBVN, Faridabad.


Appearance:-


DHBVN, Hisar 2. SDO/Op J.Colony Faridabad

.



ORDER

Sh. Sudhir Kumar, H.N. 2585 Airforce Road Jawahar Colony Faridabad has got an

electricity connection bearing A/C No. 8574401000 under SDO/Op. S/D DHBVN, Jawahar Colony

Faridabad, hence this Forum has jurisdiction to hear the complaint. The complainant has filed the present complaint stating that the security amount of

Rs.1000.0 has been shown as deposited in the record of S/Divn. However, the same has again been got deposited at the time of extension of load which is wrong and requested this Forum for refund of

excess security got deposited by SDO. The complaint was forwarded to the Nodal Officer for filing the written reply of the Nigam and


were present. The SDO filed written reply vide his No. 4060 dated 29.07.17 stating that the consumer has applied for extension of load from 2.0 kw to 5.0 kw. The online system shows that

consumer has already deposited Rs.1000.00 as security against 2.0 kw. However, as per service register the consumer has applied for new connection on dated 15.11.1989 and deposited Rs.30.00

on 16.01.1990 on account of ACD. As per record no security amount was deposited against consumer account No.8574401000. Accordingly his office charged balance ACD of Rs.1000.00

from the consumer vide receipt No. BA-16-350 dated 18.05.2017. A copy of the reply was handed over to the complainant.

The complainant insisted that as per online system entry, security amount of Rs.1000.00 is

shown as deposited against his connection as such the amount again deposited may be refunded to him. The respondent SDO argued that at the time of creating of master data of ACD of old

consumers there is possibility of error as the connection dates back to the year 1989. However, the record has been verified and as per service connection register an amount of Rs.30.00 is actually

deposited by the consumer towards ACD.

The complainant was asked to produce the receipt/or any other document in support of claim of depositing Rs.1000.00 towards ACD at the time of availing the connection or afterwards which

was not produced.

After going through the records in the case file and hearing both the parties, the Forum finds that the original amount of security/ACD is Rs.30.00 only in the books of Licensee and balance ACD

Rs.1000.00 has rightly been charged by the respondent SDO. The complainant failed to produce any document in support of his claim. The Forum therefore, finds no merit in the complaint and

decides to dispose of the same in terms of reply of SDO The case is closed. Both the parties to bear their own cost.





Present:-



In the matter of complaint of Smt. Radhi Devi, w/o Sh.Manish Kumar Village Rasan, PO

Dangerwas, The. Dharuhera District Rewari regarding meter of restoration of supply.


V/s


2. SDO/Op. S/D DHBVN, Dharuhera.


Appearance:-



2. SDO/Op. S/D DHBVN, Dharuhera.



ORDER

Smt. Radhi Devi, w/o Sh.Manish Kumar Village Rasgan, PO Dangerwas, Tehsil

Dharuhera District Rewari has got an electricity connection bearing account No.RM1D1761A

under (OP) Sub Divn Dharuhera hence this Forum has jurisdiction to hear the complaint.

The complainant has filed the present complaint stating that she has an electricity

connection under domestic category was released in 2011 (BPL scheme). The meter was

running OK and billing done on average basis @ 80 units. She paid all the bills in time. During

the month of Sept.2016, the actual consumption in the meter shown as 8830 units and payment

for this higher consumption was insisted by the respondent SDO. On nonpayment of the bill the

supply was disconnected. The complainant requested this Forum to get her supply restored by

withdrawing the excess and unjustified charged debited in her energy account.




The proceedings held at Rewari on 21.07.17. The complainant and respondent SDO

were present. The SDO made a requested for giving another date in the case vide his letter

dated 21.07.17.

The complainant argued for restoration of her electricity supply as the disconnection was

unjustified and affected without valid and sufficient reasons by the SDO in the first place. The

Forum asked the complainant to deposit 50% of the amount in dispute for restoration of supply

to which the complainant refused and stated that she has another connection in the premises

and the case may be processed and decided in due course.

During oral submissions the respondent SDO informed the Forum that the compliant

was received in his office late and written submissions could not be prepared. The SDO

requested for adjournment of case to the next hearing. The request allowed and case is

adjourned to 25.08.17/31.08.17 to be heard at Rewari.

The proceeding held at Rewari on 31.08.2017. The complainant and respondent SDO

were present. The SDO filed written reply vide NO.999 dated 24.08.17 stating that the billing of

consumer was made on average basis which was on lower side compared to actual

consumption shown by energy meter hence a sum of Rs.26902.00 charged on a/c of difference

of actual unit consumption vide SC&AR No. R 193/1331. Presently the connection is

disconnected as Rs.37346.00 is outstanding against the complainant. The consumption data of

the consumer from 11/2011 to 11/2016 has also been placed on record. The SDO argued the

case in line with written submission. The complainant was also present and insisted that excess

charges have been levied by recording fake consumption which needs to be adjusted and her

power supply needs to be restored immediately as they are facing harassment on a/c of

disconnection.

Scrutiny of consumption data placed on record by SDO reveals that the reading in the

meter was 1 in 11/2011 and last reading in 11/2016 was 8846 units. The consumer has been

billed arbitrarily by taking the fake readings. After considering all the facts of the case, records

in case file and hearing both the parties, the Forum decides that:-

1. The account of consumer may be overhauled for the entire consumption recorded during 11/2011 to 11/2016 i.e. 8845 KWH minus actual amount already billed to the consumer during this period by applying relevant tariff from time to time. The slab benefits as admissible to the consumer may also be allowed in line with Nigam instructions while overhauling the account.

2. Action against meter reading agency for recording arbitrarily reading leading to harassment to the consumer may also be taken in terms of applicable Nigam instructions and terms of the contract with the agency. Case is closed. Both the parties to bear their own cost.



















In the matter of complaint of Sh. Surender Kumar, s/o Sh. Gian Chand, Shop No.15,

Jagdambay Colony Sirsa regarding excess charging in the bill.


V/s


…….Respondents


None

For the Respondent 1 Nodal Officer/CGRF, DHBVN, Hisar 2 Comml. Asstt of SDO (OP) City DHBVN Sirsa



ORDER

Sh. Surender Kumar, s/o Sh. Gian Chand, Shop No.15, Jagdambay Colony Sirsa has

got an electricity connection bearing A/C No. 2384480000 under SDO/Op City Sub-Division,


The complainant has filed the present complaint stating therein that charging of Rs.75920.00

made in the bill for Feb.2017 under the head ‘sundry charges and allowances’’ is unjustified as the

meter supply was not in use for a long time and meter was removed in good condition. The

complainant requested for correction of his bill. The complaint was forwarded to the Nodal Officer for filing the written reply of the Nigam and



nor any representative appeared on his behalf. The Comml Asst of City Sub Divn was present and

filed written statement vide No.7582 dated 3.8.17 stating that the accuracy of the meter removed

from the site of consumer got checked from M&T lab and meter found dead stop. Both seals were intact but meter glass broken. After opening meter body no abnormality found. The reading verified

by the lab did not match with the billing system as such the consumer was charged on the basis of normative consumption based on connected load for Rs.75920.00 vide SCA&R No.135/562. A copy

of M&T lab report, LL-1 and calculation detail also placed on record by the respondent S/Divn. After examination of record, the Forum finds that the consumption recorded during period

1/2016 to 12/2016 is not commensurate with the sanctioned load of 4.0 kw. It was also observed that the meter stopped functioning at 45960 kwh as verified by M&T Lab and recorded in LL-1 duly

acknowledged by the consumer himself. Still the consumer was charged on normative consumption basis ignoring actual reading.

The Forum therefore decides that consumer account may be overhauled by charging for the units recorded in the meter. The penal action against meter reading agency for not recording the correct readings may also be initiated in terms of the applicable guidelines of Licensee. The case is

closed. Both the parties to bear their own cost. As required under Haryana State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Guidelines for






FORUM FOR REDRESSAL OF CONSUMER GRIEVANCES DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM D-BLOCK, Ground Floor, Vidyut Sadan, Vidyut Nagar, Hisar-125 005 Telephone No. 01662-223081 (website: www.dhbvn.com) (e-mail ID: [email protected]) ___________________________________________________________ Case No. DH/CGRF-1816/2017 Date of Institution: 17.07.2017 Date of Hearing: 11.08.2017 Date of order: 11.08.2017 Before the Forum for Redressal of Consumer Grievances, DHBVN.


In the matter of complaint of Sh Baljeet Singh s/o Sh. Chhotu Ram, Village Dhansu Hisar

regarding shifting of electricity line passing over his house.


V/s 1. XEN/Op. Division No.II, DHBVN, Hisar. 2.SDO(OP), DHBVN, Satrod, Hisar. …………….Respondents

Appearance:-


2.SDO (OP) Satrod, Hisar.



ORDER Sh Baljeet Singh s/o Sh. Chhotu Ram, Village Dhansu Hisar has filed the present

complaint stating that high voltage electricity line is passing over his house causing potential

danger of life and property. The complainant requested for shifting of line passing over his

house






11.08.17 stating that estimate for removing electricity line passing over the house of the

complainant has been framed by his office and work for removing line will be executed within 10

days as per availability of material to redress the grievance of the complainant. During oral

submission, the consumer admitted that the electricity line existed and he has constructed the

house later on the proximity of electricity line.

After perusal of records and hearing the parties, the Forum decides that noticed for

depositing the estimated amount be issued to the complainant and work of shifting may be

undertaken and completed within 10 days thereafter. With this direction the case is closed. Both












Given under our hands on this day of 11th August, 2017. (K.D.Bansal) (Rajesh Sharma) (Manu Bishnoi) Member Technical Member/Accounts Independent Member -cum-Chairman


Present:-


In the matter of complaint of Sh. Vijesh s/o Sh. Ram Sukh, 1004 Bala Ji Chowk, Mahavir Colony

Hisar regarding non receipt of electricity bills.



Appearance:-

For Complainant: 1.None For the Respondent: 1.Nodal Officer, CGRF, DHBVN, Hisar.




ORDER Sh. Vijesh s/o Sh. Ram Sukh, 1004 Bala Ji Chowk Mahavir Colony Hisar has got an

electricity connection bearing account No.0189920000 under SDO (OP) City S/Divn. Hisar


The complainant has filed present complaint stating that his electricity bills are not being

delivered in time. The Bill Distributors keep the bills with them for days together causing levy of

surcharge by respondent Nigam. The employees of Licensee also misbehaved with the

consumer. The complainant requested for timely delivery of bill enabling him to pay the bill

accordingly and also for withdrawal of surcharge levied in his bills due to late delivery of bills.



of the case. The proceedings held at Hisar on 11.08.2017. The complainant was not present nor any

representative of his behalf. The respondent SDO were present. The respondent SDO filed

written reply through Nodal Officer vide No.9598 dated 11.08.17 stating that the bills are

distributed by M/S NVG. The surcharge of Rs.33.00 and 97.00 levied due to non receipt of bills

have been adjusted vide SC&AR No.529/92A and 530/92A respectively. Further, no employee

misbehaved with the consumer. At some time due to poor connectivity the bill printing may be

delayed. The SDO also placed on record the copies of bills where the surcharge amount has

been withdrawn / adjusted.

After perusal of records and reply filed by the SDO, the Forum observed that the late

payment surcharge levied in the bills of consumer has already been withdrawn. The Forum

therefore decided to dispose of the complaint in terms of defense reply with the direction to

respondent SDO to ensure timely delivery of bills to the aggrieved consumer. The Case is


A separate complaint filed by Sh.Mahender Singh Shekhawat, H No. 999 Bala Ji Chowk,

Mahavir Colony Hisar is also disposed of in terms of above order.

If the petitioners are not satisfied with the decision of CGRF, they have the right to file an












In the matter of complaint of Sh. Ram Kishan Sharma President RWA , H.N. 2087, Sector-13

Bhiwani regarding tightening of loose wires, voltage fluctuations and pruning of trees interfering

with electrical lines.


V/s



Present

For the Respondent

1 Nodal Officer CGRF,DHBVN Hisar.. 2 SDO (OP) S/U Sub Divn. No.1, DHBVN Bhiwani



ORDER

Sh. Ram Kishan Sharma, President RWA, H.N. 2087, Sector-13 Bhiwani under SDO/Op. S/U

Sub-Division, No.1,DHBVN, Bhiwani, has filed the present complaint, regarding tightening of wires of

street light in Sector-13, release of electricity connection to the Community Centre of Sector-13,

replacement of conductor with cable, voltage fluctuations and pruning of trees interfering with the

electrical lines passing through Sector-13, Bhiwani.



case.


SDO were present. Respondent SDO filed reply vide memo No.7976 dated 18.08.2017 stating that

the:-

1. The complainant has made complaint regarding tightening of street light wires of Sector 13 &

23. In this regard, it is stated that maintenance of street light is under the jurisdiction of

Municipal Committee/HUDA.

2. The second complaint is regarding release of electric connection in community centre Sector-

13 Bhiwani for which it is stated that the connection has been disconnected on account of

defaulting amount and can be restored on payment of pending dues.

3. The third complaint is regarding replacement of conductor with cable for which it is stated that

as per JE Incharge report after checking of site there is 3 SWG ACSR LT line is installed and

there are no chances of accident and line is working very smoothly. However, in the area where

there is low size conductor and line is risky cable is being provided.

4. The fourth complaint is regarding tree cutting for which work is under process. This is routine

practice and is being carried out for mtc. of line purpose.

During the hearing, the complainant filed a rejoinder dated 22.08.2017 stating that the

conductor near house No. 2081 to 2088 and four houses thereafter is passing through the trees and

may break any time. The complainant requested for its replacement with the cable of approx. 1400

feet.

A copy of reply was handed over to the complainant. Both the parties argued the case in line

with the written submissions.

After going through the records and hearing the parties the Forum finds that the complaint is

frivolous and lack of merits on majority of issues raised therein. The Forum therefore decides to

dispose of the same in terms of reply filed by respondent SDO with the direction to undertake a site

visit in respect of condition of conductor installed in front of H.N. 2081 to 2088 and four houses

thereafter and take action as per extent instructions of the Nigam within a period of one month.










Regulations-2016.









In the matter of complaint of Sh. M.B.Acharya, Gali Captain Nathu Singh, Bartan Bazar (Lohar

Bazar) Bhiwani regarding voltage fluctuation.


V/s

XEN (OP) City Divn. DHBVN Bhiwani SDO (OP) City Sub Divn. DHBVN Bhiwani


Present

For the Respondent

1 Nodal Officer CGRF,DHBVN Hisar.. 2 SDO (OP) City Sub Divn. DHBVN Bhiwani



ORDER

Sh. M.B.Acharya, Gali Captain Nathu Singh, Bartan Bazar (Lohar Bazar) Bhiwani has got an

electricity connection having account No. 8870680000 which falls under SDO/Op. City Sub-Division,


The complainant has filed the present complaint, stating therein that there is huge voltage

fluctuation in the electricity supply to his house causing damage to electrical appliances installed in the

house. The water supply is also disrupting on account of voltage fluctuations. The complainant

requested this Forum to get the voltage regulated as per norms to avoid the hardship to him and other

the residents of the area.



case.


respondent SDO were present. Respondent SDO filed reply vide memo No.1243 dated 18.08.2017

stating that the grievance of the consumer has been resolved on dated 21.08.2017 at 04.40 pm by

replacing the jumper and now the supply is constant and assessed as 210.0 volt without any

interruption as per schedule. A copy of reply was handed over to the complainant. The complainant

acknowledged that his grievance has been resolved.

As the grievance of the consumer has been resolved, the Forum decides to close the case.






Regulations-2016.






Present:-




In the matter of complaint of Smt. Motia Kumari w/o Late Sh. Tirth Ram, H.N.

3C/7, SGM Nagar, NIT Faridabad (correspondence address: 1B-180, Near Phawara

Singh Chowk, NIT, Faridabad) in the matter of wrong billing.


V/s



Appearance:-


DHBVN, 2. Representative of SDO/OP.

.



ORDER

Smt. Motia Kumari w/o Late Sh. Tirth Ram, H.N. 3C/7, SGM Nagar, NIT Faridabad has

got an electricity connection bearing A/C No. 4786240000 under SDO/Op. S/D No. 4 DHBVN


The complainant has filed the present complaint stating that her electricity bill for the

month of April, 2017 has been raised for Rs.29752/-. On enquiry it was informed that additional

charges on account of old meter being faulty has been added in the current bill. The

complainant stated that the meter was replaced quite a time back and 3-4 bills after

replacement of the meter have already been raised which she paid in time. No information of

her old meter being faulty /tampered has ever been given to her nor the old meter was

shown/checked in her presence. After pursuance a skeleton of meter (photograph enclosed)

was shown to her stating that this meter was removed from her premises. The meter shown to

her was badly damaged whereas the meter removed from her site was perfectly in good

condition. The complainant requested this Forum to get the excess charges withdrawn.




The proceedings held at Faridabad on 08.08.2017. The complainant and representative

of respondent SDO were present. The complainant argued her case in line with the written

complaint and requested for setting aside excess charges levied in the current bill citing removal

of meter in good condition, charging the amount without getting the meter checked in her

presence and no notice/intimation before the charging by the SDO.

The respondent SDO filed written reply stating that the meter checked by M&T Lab after

replacement and both firm seals and meter body found tampered as reported by SDO/M&T Lab

vide Memo No.1518 dated 07.12.16. Notices were issued to consumer vide his office Memo

No.493 dated 22.3.17 and No. 661 dated 28.03.17. Hence it is a case of theft of energy and

penalty of Rs.29670/- including compounding Rs.4000/- charged in the consumer account

accordingly. Copy of SDO M&T Lab letter No. 1518 dated 7/12/2016 mentioning therein the

remarks of the lab ‘both firm seals found tampered’ against the consumer meter Sr. No. 950937

of Genus Make 1X5-20A with copies of notices reportedly sent to the consumer placed on

records.

A copy of reply of SDO was provided to the complainant who was not satisfied with the

reply and insisted withdrawal of the charges as per grounds already taken and mentioned in the

aforementioned para. It was further argued that charges levied after 7-8 months of removal of

the meter and without checking of meter in her presence may not be relied. The complainant

also denied receipt of any notice from the office of SDO for associating in meter checking. The

respondent SDO argued as per written reply therein justifying the charges.

The respondent SDO was asked to place on records consumption data for the last three

years, copy of MCO and meter checking report. The consumer’s consumption data from August,

2014 onwards was provided by the SDO as follows:

Period of reading Old Reading (In KWH)

New Reading (in KWH)

consumption (In KWH)

07.8.14 to 07.10.14 17795 18708 913 07.10.14 to 07.12.14 18708 19085 377 07.12.14 to 07.02.15 19085 19340 255 07.02.15 to 07.04.15 19340 19684 344 07.04.15 to 07.06.15 19684 20473 789 07.06.15 to 07.08.15 20473 21481 1008 07.08.15 to 07.10.15 21481 22485 1004 07.10.15 to 07.12.15 22485 22942 457 07.12.15 to 07.02.16 22942 23289 347 07.02.16 to 07.04.16 23289 23745 556 07.04.16 to 07.06.16 23845 24443 598 07.06.16 to 07.08.16 24443 25525 782 07.08.16 to 07.10.16 25225 25629 404 07.10.16 to 08.12.16 25629 26033 404 08.12.16 to 07.02.17 01 198 197 07.02.17 to 07.04.17 198 335 137 07.04.17 to 07.06.17 335 641 306

The closing reading of 26033 tallies the report of M&T lab sent to SDO (OP) S/D No.4

vide M&T Lab Memo No.1518 dated 7.12.2016. Copy of MCO and M&T checking report of the

meter, as required by the Forum, was not placed on records by the respondent SDO alongwith

consumption data.

As the proposed charging has been made on account of suspected theft, the Forum

decides not to pass specific orders on the merits of the case. However, considering the facts on

records and non providing all relevant records by the respondent sub division as

aforementioned, the Forum decides that the matter be considered by the SE/OP Circle,

DHBVN, Faridabad and a speaking order in this regard be made in a period of one month. The

case is closed. Both the parties to bear their own cost.







Case No. DH/CGRF- 1821 /2017 Date of Institution: 25/07/2017 Date of Hearing: 31/08/2017 Date of Order : 05/09/2017


1 K.D.Bansal, Member Technical-cum-Chairman 2 Rajesh Sharma, Member Accounts

In the matter of complaint of Sh. Veer Singh s/o Sh. Nobat Ram (through Sh. Sandeep Gupta)

Village Bhojawas, Tehsil Ateli Distt. Mohindergarh regarding wrong billing


V/s

XEN (OP) DHBVN Mohindergarh SDO (OP) City Mohindergarh

…….Respondents


None

For the Respondent 1 Nodal Officer CGRF DHBVN Hisar. 2 Respondent SDO



ORDER

Sh. Veer Singh s/o Sh. Nobat Ram Village Bhojawas, Tehsil Ateli Distt. Mohindergarh has got

an electricity connection bearing A/C No. BH-11-1179A under SDO, City Sub-Division Mohindergarh


The complainant has filed the present complaint through Sh. Sandeep Gupta, stating therein

that he got his meter replaced under VDS scheme of the Nigam but thereafter the billing has been

done on average basis for the last 6 months and not being rectified/adjusted after several complaints to

the concerned S/D. The complainant requested this Forum for getting his bill corrected.



case.

The proceedings held at Narnaul on 31.08.2017. The complainant was not present and

respondent SDO was present. The SDO filed written reply vide No.2640 dated 29.08.17 stating that

bills of the consumer were issued on average basis due to non entry of MCO. Now MCO has been

entered and bills raised on actual consumption basis. A sum or Rs.2972.00 credited to the consumer

account vide SC&AR No.223/421 dated 29.8.17. The SDO also informed the Forum that the consumer

is now satisfied as the grievance has already been redressed.

After perusal of record in the case file and hearing respondent SDO, the Forum finds that the

grievance of the complainant already redressed by the respondent SDO by adjusting the average bills

as such the complaint is disposed accordingly. No cost on either side. Case is closed.





Regulations-2016.




Redressal of Consumer Grievances DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM D-BLOCK, Ground Floor, Vidyut Sadan, Vidyut Nagar, Hisar-125 005 (website: www.dhbvn.com) (e-mail ID: [email protected]) Case No. DH/CGRF-1822/2017 Date of Institution: 25.07.2017 Date of Hearing: 31.08.2017

Date of Order : 05.09.2017


Present:-



In the matter of complaint of Sh. R.P.Mehra Plot No.9, Sector-10 Rewari filed on behalf

of Haryana Excise and Taxation employees cooperative housing society Ltd. regarding wrong

billing.


V/s


2. SDO/Op. City S/D No.II, DHBVN, Rewari.


Appearance:-



2. Respondent SDO



ORDER

Sh. R.P.Mehra Plot No.9, Sector-10 Rewari has got an electricity connection bearing

account No. 1225901000 (old No. C-8/HT-0018) under (OP) City Sub Divn No.II Rewari hence


The complainant has filed the present complaint on behalf of Haryana Excise and

Taxation employees cooperative housing society Ltd. stating that tariff in their bill is being

applied wrongly. He approached the SDO several times for correction of the bill by applying

correct tariff. However no action has been taken. The complainant requested this Forum to get

their bill corrected.




The proceedings held at Rewari on 31.08.17. The complainant & respondent SDO were

present. The SDO submitted written reply vide No.5585 dated 31.08.17 stating that a sum of

Rs.1502918.00 has been adjusted t the consumer account by overhauling the account vide

SC&AR No.403/R-69 by applying correct tariff under bulk domestic category. The tariff category

also updated in the system for future billing. A copy of reply filed by SDO was handed over to

the complainant who expressed satisfaction on the action taken by SDO on his grievance.

As the grievance of the complainant has been redressed, the complaint is disposed of in

terms of reply of respondent SDO. Both the parties to bear their own cost. Case is closed. File be consigned to record.




Redressal of Consumer Grievances DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM D-BLOCK, Ground Floor, Vidyut Sadan, Vidyut Nagar, Hisar-125 005 (website: www.dhbvn.com) (e-mail ID: [email protected]) Case No. DH/CGRF-1823/2017 Date of Institution: 25.07.2017 Date of Hearing: 31.08.2017



Present:-



In the matter of complaint of Sh. Ved Parkash s/o Sh. Amar Singh, Vil Dhamlawas,PO

Pithrawas ( Rewari) regarding removal of iron pole & possibility of current.


V/s


2. SDO/Op. DHBVN, Pali (Gothra).


Appearance:-



2. Respondent SDO



ORDER

Sh. Ved Parkash s/o Sh. Amar Singh, Vil Dhamlawas, PO Pithrawas ( Rewari) has got

an electric connection bearing account No.GB-1117, under (OP) Sub Divn Pali Gothara hence


The complainant has filed the present complaint stating that there is an iron pole

adjacent to his office and there is possibility of passing electricity current through this pole. All

the iron poles in the village have been replaced except this one. The complainant requested this

Forum for replacement of this iron pole to avoid chances of accident on account of

electrocution.




The proceedings held at Rewari on 31.08.17. The complainant & respondent SDO were

present. The SDO submitted written reply vide No. 2395 dated 31.08.17 stating that the bare

conductor from the iron pole in question has already been removed. The iron pole is supporting

only the insulated service cable of surrounding houses and since the bare conductor already

removed from the pole there is no possibility of passing of electricity current. The site has been

visited many times but due to dispute amongst neighbours new pole to support PVC cable could

not be erected. S/D representative during oral submission stated that the lane where the pole is

installed is quite narrow and it is difficult to replace the pole due to right of way problem.

After hearing both the parties, the Forum observed that the main grievance of the

complainant i.e. potential danger of electrocution on a/c of passing of electricity through this iron

pole has already been taken care of by removing bare conductor. The Forum therefore decides

to dispose of the complaint with the direction to XEN (OP) Dharuhera to conduct the site visit

and explore the possibility of removal/replacement if iron pole in due course. Both the parties to

bear their own cost. Case is closed. If the petitioner is not satisfied with the decision of CGRF, he has the right to file an appeal









Present:-



In the matter of complaint of Sh. Balwal Singh s/o Sh. Chhote Lal, Village Naya Gaon,

PO Bikaner, Rewari regarding replacement of meter.


V/s


2. SDO/Op. S/U S/D DHBVN, Rewari.


Appearance:-



2. Representative of SDO



ORDER

Sh. Balwal Singh s/o Sh. Chhote Lal, Village Naya Gaon, PO Bikaner, Rewari has got an

electricity connection bearing account No. GG-1D-260 under (OP) S/U Sub Divn Rewari hence


The complainant has filed the present complaint stating that he has applied for change

of meter on 21.01.15 but the meter has not been replaced. The complainant requested this

Forum to get his grievance redressed.




The proceedings held at Rewari on 31.08.17. The complainant was not present. The

representative of respondent SDO was present. The SDO submitted written reply vide No.2344

dated 31.08.17 stating that the meter of subject cited consumer has been changed on 10.08.17

through SJO No.41/110. A copy of SJO containing signature of the complainant also placed on

record.

As the grievance of the complainant has already been redressed, the complaint is

disposed of in terms of reply of respondent SDO. Both the parties to bear their own cost. Case

is closed. File be consigned to record.








Present:-



In the matter of complaint of Sh. Om Parkash Village Bhudpur, Tehsil and Distt Rewari

regarding replacement of meter.


V/s


2. SDO/Op. S/U S/D DHBVN, Rewari.


Appearance:-






ORDER

Om Parkash Village Bhudpur, Tehsil and Distt Rewari has got an electricity connection

bearing account No. BD-1D-0526A under (OP) S/U Sub Divn Rewari hence this Forum has


The complainant has filed the present complaint stating that he has applied for change

of meter on 3.9.2013 but the meter has not been replaced. The complainant requested this

Forum to get his grievance redressed.




The proceedings held at Rewari on 31.08.17. The complainant was not present. The

representative of respondent SDO was present. The SDO submitted written reply vide No.2345

dated 31.08.17 stating that the meter of subject cited consumer has been changed on 20.08.17

through MCO No.23/1411. A copy of MCO containing signature of the complainant also placed

on record.

As the grievance of the complainant has already been redressed, the complaint is

disposed of in terms of reply of respondent SDO. Both the parties to bear their own cost. Case

is closed. File be consigned to record.






Date of Hearing: 31.08.2017 Date of Order : 05.09.2017


Present:-



In the matter of complaint of Sh. Ram Sarup Ward No.2, Subhash Nagar Jhajjar Road,

near Uma Bharti School Rewari regarding wrong billing.


V/s




Appearance:-



2. Representative of SDO/Op. City S/D No.1, DHBVN,

Rewari.



ORDER

Sh. Ram Sarup Ward No.2, Subhash Nagar Jhajjar Road, near Uma Bharti School

Rewari has got an electricity connection No. DUYY1DD-914 under (OP) City Sub Divn No.1

Rewari hence this Forum has jurisdiction to hear the complaint.

The complainant has filed the present complaint stating that the average charged during

the meter remained defective has not been adjusted in subsequent bills. The complainant

requested this Forum to get his grievance redressed.




The proceedings held at Rewari on 31.08.17. The complainant and representative of

SDO were present. The SDO submitted reply through Nodal Officer/CGRF, vide his memo No.

4080 dated 31.08.2017, stating that meter of consumer became defective in the month of

4/2017 and was replaced on 22.5.17. The bill during defective period raised on average basis

shall be adjusted in the next bill cycle. During oral submissions the representative of SDO

informed the Forum that new bill for the month of 7/2017 has already been issued as per actual

consumption. However, the new bill does not contain the adjustment of average charged during

the defective period pertaining to April/May-2017. The representative assured to get the

adjustment done in the next bill.

After perusal of the records of case file and hearing the parties, the Forum decides to

dispose of the complaint with the direction to respondent SDO to adjust the average charged

from the consumer in the ensuing bill. Case is closed. Both the parties to bear their own.











Present:-


In the matter of complaint of Sh Gulshan Kumar Khurana H.N.1395/UE-II Hisar regarding wrong

billing.


V/s 1. XEN/Op. Division No.I, DHBVN, Hisar. 2.SDO(OP), Civil Lines DHBVN, Hisar. …………….Respondents

Appearance:-


2.SDO (OP) Civil Lines, Hisar.



ORDER Sh Gulshan Kumar Khurana H.N.1395/UE-II Hisar has got an electricity connection

being account No.3387920000 under SDO(OP) C/Lines Hisar hence this Forum has jurisdiction


The complainant has filed present complaint stating that his family shifted to

Bahadurgarh and their house is locked with no electricity consumption. He also made a

reference to SDO in this regard before shifting. However, bills on average basis are being

issued and supply also disconnected. The complainant requested for correction of bills and get

minimum amount charges as per applicable instructions.






11.08.17 stating that the reading in the meter was not visible as reported during checking of JE

on dated 8.8.17. The bills were issued on average basis. The complainant countered the

argument by stating that supply is already disconnected and the reading may not be visible due

to non supply in the meter at the time of checking.

The SDO was directed to get the meter checked on today. Checking report has been

placed on record and as per report the meter was found OK with last reading as 7880 KWH.

After perusal of records and hearing the parties, the Forum decides that the average bills

of the consumer may be corrected by charging the actual reading or MMC as applicable and

supply may be restored. With this direction, the case is closed. Both the parties to bear their

own cost.














Present:-




In the matter of complaint of Sh. Vijay Kumar Plot No.3, Sai Nagar Mawai



V/s

1. Xen/Op. DHBVN, Greater Faridabad. 2.SDO/Op. S/Divn. Kheri Kalan, Faridabad.


Appearance:-


DHBVN, 2. SDO/Op Kheri Kalan

.



ORDER

Sh. Vijay Kumar Plot No.3, Sai Nagar Mawai Faridabad has got an electricity connection

bearing A/C No. 3610790000 under SDO/Op. S/D DHBVN, Kheri Kalan Faridabad, hence this

Forum has jurisdiction to hear the complaint. The complainant has filed the present complaint stating that his meter became faulty in

Nov.2016 and was replaced only in April 2017 after his great pursuance with the respondent Nigam. The complainant stated that during the period the meter remained faulty, incorrect and inflated bills

have been raised on average basis. The consumer requested this Forum to get his bills corrected. The complaint was forwarded to the Nodal Officer for filing the written reply of the Nigam and


were present. The complainant presented his case arguing that inflated bills have been raised during the meter remained defective and even after replacement of meter in April-2017 the bills have

been raised on average basis and requested for correction of the same. The respondent SDO was present and informed that written reply could not be prepared but the requisite adjustment in the bills

of consumer are under process and same shall be reflected in ensuing bill of the consumer.

After going through the records in the case file and hearing both the parties, the Forum finds that this is a case of non adjustment of average billing made during the period the meter remained

faulty. The Forum therefore, decides to dispose of the complaint with the direction to respondent

SDO that the bills of the consumer for the period Nov.2016 to March 2017 during which average has

been charged may be correcting by taking the consumption of corresponding months of previous year as the meter of consumer was working OK during this period. Further, the average charged

during the month of April-2017 to July 2017 may be adjusted by taking actual consumption of new meter as the meter has been replaced in the month of April-2017. All these adjustments be reflected

in the next bill of the consumer. The case is closed. Both the parties to bear their own cost.









Present:-




In the matter of complaint of Sh. Suraj Kumar, H.N. 111 Moti Colony Sehatpur



V/s



Appearance:-


DHBVN, Hisar 2. SDO/Op S/D Tilpat Faridabad



. ORDER

Sh. Suraj Kumar, H.N. 111 Moti Colony Sehatpur Faridabad has got an electricity

connection bearing A/C No. 8839650000 under SDO/Op. S/D DHBVN, Tilpat Faridabad, hence this Forum has jurisdiction to hear the complaint.


has not been adjusted in the subsequent bills as per actual consumption causing excess demand. The complainant requested this Forum to get his bill corrected.


the case.

The proceedings held at Faridabad on 08.08.2017. The complainant and respondent SDO

were present. The SDO filed written reply vide his No. Spl 2 dated 08.08.17 stating that the bill of complainant has already been rectified vide SCA&R No. R-48/293 Rs. (-) 16177.00 and same will be

reflected in the bill of 09/2017. A copy of the reply was handed over to the complainant. The complainant was satisfied.


that the grievance of the consumer has already been redressed by respondent SDO, therefore, the complaint is disposed of with the direction to SDO that the adjustment carried out through sundry is

reflected in the next bill of consumer. The case is closed. Both the parties to bear their own cost.











Case No. DH/CGRF-1831/2017 Date of Institution:28.07.2017 Date of Hearing: 16.08.2017 & 22/09/2017 Date of Order: 22/09/2017


1 Rajesh K Sharma, Member Accounts 2 Manu Bishnoi, Independent Membr

In the matter of complaint of Sh. Nigai Ram, Vil Mohammadpur Salarpur Sirsa regarding



V/s


…….Respondents


None

For the Respondent 1 Nodal Officer/CGRF, DHBVN, Hisar 2 Respondent SDO



ORDER

Sh. Nigai Ram, Village Mohammadpur Salarpur Sirsa has got an electricity connection bearing

A/C No. SA-42-897under SDO/Op I/Area Sub-Division, DHBVN, Sirsa, hence this Forum has jurisdiction


The complainant has filed the present complaint stating therein that he is a regular paying consumer and his meter is working OK for the last 5 years. However in the current bill an amount of

Rs.131000.00 has been charged which is not justified. The complainant requested for correction of his

bill.



The proceedings of the case held at Sirsa on 16.08.17. The complainant and representative of

S/Divn. were present. The complainant argued his case in line with written submissions insisting that

theirs is a BPL family and the actual consumption of electricity is meager hence the bill of Rs.131000.00

is at all not justified. The representative of S/Divn filed written reply vide No.2382 dated 4.8.2017 stating

that connection is under domestic category with sanctioned load of 0.5 kw. As per ledger record the

reading from 2/2015 to 10/2016 shown as zero and billed on forced average basis @ 80 units by the

computer. But during m/o 12/2016 reading recorded as 28675 and old initial reading was 3992. The

premises of consumer was checked by Sh. Kashmir Singh JE as per exception list basis and found reading as 28920 and meter working OK. Hence the difference of actual reading charged to consumer

account which becomes Rs.131235.00.

After hearing both the parties the Forum directed the S/Divn representative to get the consumer

meter checked from M&T lab and placed the checking report alongwith comments before the Forum on

or before next date. Case is adjourned to the next date.

The proceedings of the case held at Sirsa on 22/09/2017. The complainant was not present but

respondent SDO was present. The SDO filed written statement stating that meter got verified from M&T

Lab vide Memo No. 1127/1071 dated 24/08/2017 and reading found 829630.2 Both seals were intact,

accuracy not checked due to block heated and meter reading abnormal i.e. 829360.2 KW. Meter RTC

failed so date and time is rearrange. Copy of the report placed on record. It was agreed by the

respondents during hearing that the readings shown by the meter are abnormally high which indicates

flawed working of the meter. The reading in meter increased from 28675 in 12/2016 to 829630.2 in

9/2017 which shows abnormal behavior of the meter.

After examining the records in the case file, hearing of the parties and taking into consideration the M&T Lab report about the status of the meter, the Forum decides that the account of the consumer

for the disputed period including average billed i.e. 2/2014 to the date of replacement of meter may be

overhauled as per clause 6.9.1 of HERC Electricity Supply Code duly adopted by the Licensee vide

Sales Circular No. 26/2016. The case is closed. Both the parties to bear their own cost.






before the competent authority 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-2016.


Given under our hands on this day of 22nd September, 2017.

(Rajesh K Sharma) (Manu Bishnoi) Member/Accounts Independent Member


Present:-


In the matter of complaint of Principal Govt Colllege for Women, Delhi Bye Pass, Hisar




Appearance:-





ORDER Principal Govt Colllege for Women, Delhi Bye Pass, Hisar has got an electricity

connection bearing account No.1741620000 under SDO (OP) City S/Divn. Hisar hence this


The complainant has filed present complaint stating that their electricity bill for the month

of July-2017 has been issued for Rs.146696/- with unit consumption of 19620 which is much

higher than their average consumption of 4000-5000 units. The complainant requested for

correction of their bill.



of the case. The proceedings held at Hisar on 11.08.2017. The representative of complainant and

respondent SDO were present. The complainant presented his case in line with written

complaint already filed. The respondent SDO filed written statement through Nodal Officer vide

No.9597 dated 11.08.17 stating that bill of consumer is correct as per reading recorded by the

representative of BCITS (reading agency). The meter of the consumer was changed on

26.07.17 at last reading was 62773 KWH with block burnt. The SDO also produced the meter

before the Forum to ascertain the last reading recorded in the meter. The last reading was

confirmed as 62773.9. with MDI as 33.33 KVA. There was no counter argument by the

representative of the complainant.

After perusal of records and hearing the parties, the Forum observed that the bills have

been raised as per actual consumption and no further action is required at the end of Licensee.

The complaint is disposed of in terms of the reply of respondent SDO. The Case is closed. Both














In the matter of complaint of Sh. Sukhvinder Singh, Correspondence Address :Water

Supply and Sanitation Divn.No.2 Mansa (Pb) regarding change of name and extension of load

of AP connection.


V/s

1 Xen/Op. Division, DHBVN, Dabwali 2 SDO (OP) Sub-Division, DHBVN, Kalanwali

…….Respondents


None

For the Respondent 1 Nodal Officer/CGRF, DHBVN, Hisar 2 Comml. Asstt of SDO (OP) DHBVN Kalanwali



ORDER

Sh. Sukhvinder Singh of Mansa Punjab has got an electricity connection bearing A/C No.

BH-61-0073 under SDO/Op. Sub-Division, DHBVN, Kalanwali, hence this Forum has jurisdiction to

hear the complaint.

The complainant has filed the present complaint stating therein that the he applied for

extension of load from 10 BHP to 20 BHP and change of name in the connection but no action has been taken by the concerned S/D even after a lapse of 3 months. The complainant requested for

getting his grievance redressed from the respondent S/Divn. The complaint was forwarded to the Nodal Officer for filing the written reply of the Nigam and



nor any representative appeared on his behalf. The Comml Asstt from Sub Divn was present and

filed written reply vide No.2799 dated 17.08.17 stating that no charges or security for extension of

load /change of name has been deposited in the office by the consumer hence request was not processed. During oral submission the representative submitted that application is incomplete;

contain no documents/security etc. A notice to the consumer vide No.2797 dated 16.08.17 has been issued to the complainant for complying with the conditions and deposit the requisite charges so as

to process the application as per applicable instructions. Moreover, the revenue records (Killa and Murabba No.) in respect of existing connection and that now applied by the complainant are different

and do not tally with the records of S/Divn. After examination of record and hearing both the parties, the Forum finds no merit in the

complaint and dismiss the same. The case is closed. Both the parties to bear their own cost.










In the matter of complaint of Sh. Radha Singh, Booth No.14 New Anaj Mandi Sirsa



V/s


…….Respondents


Present

For the Respondent 1 Nodal Officer/CGRF, DHBVN, Hisar 2 Comml. Asstt of SDO (OP) I/Area DHBVN Sirsa



ORDER

Sh. Radha Singh, Booth No.14 New Anaj Mandi Sirsa has got electricity connection bearing

A/C No. 1415370000 under SDO/Op. I/Area Sub-Division, DHBVN, Sirsa, hence this Forum has jurisdiction to hear the complaint.

The complainant has filed the present complaint stating therein that the bill for the month of

7/2017 has been raised for accumulated units of 1109 KWH. In the previous months the bill for nominal units by charging MMC has been raised. The complainant requested for correction of his

bill.

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 16.08.2017 at Sirsa for hearing of the

case. The proceedings of the case held at Sirsa on 16.08.17. The complainant and representative

of I/Area Sub Divn were present. The complainant argued his case in line with the written submission and requested for correction of the bill. The S/D filed written statement vide No.2475 dte

8.8.17 stating that the consumer is having NDS connection with sanctioned load of 3.0 KW. During June-July 2017 the reading recorded by the Meter Reader as 1109 and 337 units respectively and

the consumer was billed accordingly. During the period Dec.2016 to May 2017 the units recorded

are in the range of 15-45 but consumer has not lodged any complaint.

After examination of record and hearing both the parties, the Forum finds that this is a

case of accumulation of reading as the average consumption of the consumer during summer

months is in the range of 350-400 KWH hence reading recorded in the month of July2017 i.e. 1109 units commensurate with the consumption of same months of previous year.

The Forum therefore, decides that the reading of 1109 units may be apportioned for a

period of 3 months i.e. May to July-2017 for the purpose of billing and MMC charge from the

consumer if any may be adjusted accordingly. The case is closed. Both the parties to bear their own

cost. As required under Haryana State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Guidelines for









_________________________________________________________ Case No. DH/CGRF-1839/2017

Date of Institution: 04.08.2017 Date of Hearing: 04.09.2017

Date of order: 04.09.2017


Present:-



In the matter of complaint of Sh. Krishan Kumar s/o Sh. Budh Ram H.N. 158/12, Saini

Mohalla, behind Manju Hotel Jind regarding refund of amount excess charged at the time of

release of tubewell connection.


V/s

1. Xen/Op. Division, DHBVN, Jind.

2. SDO, (OP) S/U Sub-Division-1 DHBVN, Jind.


Appearance:-

For Complainant: 1.Representative (Mr.Vijender Kumar &

Ors.)


2. Respondent SDO



ORDER Sh. Krishan Kumar s/o Sh. Budh Ram H.N. 158/12, Saini Mohalaa, has got an electricity

connection bearing A/C No. HP-04-1048-AP under SDO, S/U Sub-Division No.1, DHBVN, Jind,


The complainant has filed the present complaint stating therein that he has taken a

tubewell connection under physically handicapped quota. The complainant stated gthat in terms

of SC BNO. D-23/2016 and D-29/2016 only the estimated cost was required to be got deposited

from him where as the DHBVN has got deposited additional Rs.30000.00. At the time of

applying for the connection he submitted all the relevant instructions still Rs.30000.00 was

excessively charged from him. The complainant requested for refund of this amount of

Rs.30000.00.


and both the parties were asked to appear before the Forum on 04.09.2017 at Jind for hearing

of the case.

The proceedings held at Jind on 04.09.2017. The complainant was not present at the

scheduled time of hearing of his complaint i.e. 11.00 AM. However a representative of

complainant appeared before the Forum at around 11.45 AM. The representative argued the

case insisting that some extra charges have been levied from the complainant in violation of SC

No. D-23 & 29/2016 and HERC regulations, however he could not list out the specific relief

sought from this Forum or the exact amount said to be charged in excess of the applicable

instructions. The representative requested the Forum to adjourn the hearing till the time of

arrival of another representative who is well versed with the facts of the case. It was advised to

appear at Hisar at 3.00 PM on 4.9.2017, if he wants to bring any additional facts before the

Forum.

The respondent SDO was present and argued that charges have been levied as per

instructions of the Nigam and HERC regulations and no excess charges have been recovered

from the complainant. The respondent SDO also placed on record the copy of estimate,

Demand notice and BA-16 dated 21.06.2017 in token of deposit of Rs.30000.00 by the applicant

Sh. Krishan Kumar. The respondent SDO during oral submission argued that Rs.30000.00 got

deposited on a/c of share cost of the T/F which is rightly covered under the Sales Circulars

applicable to the present case.

The representative of complainant Sh. Vijender Kumar alongwith Sh. Charan Singh

appeared before the Forum at 3.00 PM at Hisar to argue the case. The main argument put forth

by the representative is that Licensee’s SC No.D-12/2012 where the normative cost of

Rs.30000.00 per connection was prescribed has since been amended with SC No.D-29/2016

and revised instructions prescribe that the cost of T/F shall be shred on pro rata basis

corresponding to the load of each consumer and in case the revised parameters are applied in

his case, the recoverable amount will reduce significantly or may be no cost at all to be

recovered from him. Thus the charges of Rs. 30,000/- needs to be refunded to him.

After hearing both the parties and perusal of the relevant instructions of the Licensee as

applicable from time to time the Forum observed that:-

1. The cost of distitribution T/F to be recovered from the agriculture consumers was prescribed as Rs.30000.00 ( in case the no. of connections are 3 or more from one T/F) vide SC No.D-12/2012 of DHBVN.

2. The relevant instructions amended vide SC No.23 & 29/2016 which stipulates that actual expenditure to be incurred for release of connection which shall include cost of LT/HT line and that of Distribution T/F, in case more than one consumers are released connection from the same T/F, the cost of T/F shall be shared on pro rata basis corresponding to the load of each consumer.

3. The cost of 63 KVA Dist T/F alongwith allied structure i.e. H-Pole etc works out to be more than Rs.160000.00 as per scheduled rates of Licensee including erection/overhead charges.

4. In the instant case the total no. of connections including connection of complainant are five having total connected load of 45.0 BHP with the load of complainant of 7.5 BHP. In case the share cost of the T/F is worked out as per Para-3 above, the proportionate cost for the complainant is to be worked Rs.27000.00 approx. However, in this method for working out proportionate cost to each and every new consumer the entire estimated cost has to be worked out afresh which is not practical to be followed at the time of each and every new connection. Thus after going through the both set of instructions, the considered view of this Forum is that normative cost of Rs.30000.00 as prescribed in Licensee’s SC No.D-12/2012 for the prospective consumers in case the no. of connections are 3 or more, is more practical and appropriate to be followed.

Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the case, the Forum finds that the

cost of Rs.30000.00 recovered from the consumer in the present case is well covered under the

instructions of the Licensee and HERC regulations and there is no reason to interfere with the

amount so recovered. The complaint is therefore disposed of accordingly. No cost on either

side. The case is closed. Both the parties to bear their own cost.







Given under our hands on this day of 4th September, 2017.




_________________________________________________________ Case No. DH/CGRF-1840/2017




Present:-



In the matter of complaint of Sh. Ram Mehar Singh, H.No. 2288 Urban

Estate, Jind regarding updation of security in consumer account.


V/s

1. Xen/Op. Division, DHBVN,Jind.

2.SDO, (OP) City Sub-Division No., DHBVN, Jind.


Appearance:-



2.Representative of SDO.



ORDER Sh. Ram Mehar Singh, H.No. 2288 Urban Estate, Jind has got an electricity connection

bearing A/C No. 0444910000 under SDO, City Sub-Division No., DHBVN, Jind, hence this


The complainant has filed the present complaint stating therein that security taken from

him during 2013 & 2014 @ Rs.223.00 per bill has not been updated in his energy account. The

consumer requested for redressal of his grievance.



of the case.

The proceedings held at Jind on 04.09.2017. The consumer and the respondent SDO

were present. The SDO submitted reply through Nodal Officer/CGRF stating that due to

migration of data from DOEACC to RAPDRP system, the amount of ACD charged in the bills

from 7/2013 to 11/2014 has not been updated. Now a sum of Rs.2007.00 charged form the

consumer on account of ACD has been updated manually in the account of consumer hence no

grievance of consumer is pending. A copy of reply filed by respondent SDO was handed over to

the consumer who expressed satisfaction on the action taken by respondent SDO on his

complaint.

As the grievance of consumer has already been redressed by updating the security in

his energy account, the Forum decides to dispose of the complaint in terms of the written

statement of the respondent SDO. Case is closed. Both the parties to bear their own cost.


appeal before the appropriate authority within one month from the date of receipt of the order









Case No. DH/CGRF-1841/2017 Date of Institution:16.08.2017 Date of Hearing: 16.08.2017 & 22/09/2017 Date of Order: 22/09/2017


1 Rajesh Sharma, Member Accounts 2 Manu Bishnoi, Independent Membr

In the matter of complaint of Sh. Baldev Singh near Khalsa High School, Rania Gate Sirsa



V/s


…….Respondents


None




ORDER

Sh. Baldev Singh near Khalsa High School, Rania Gate Sirsa has got an electricity

connection bearing A/C No. 5371670000 under SDO/Op I/Area Sub-Division, DHBVN, Sirsa, hence


The complainant has filed the present complaint through Sh. Gurdarshan Singh stating

therein that his bill for the month of July 2017 has been raised for Rs.130664.00 which is on higher

side compared to the actual consumption. The complainant requested for correction of his bill.


both the parties were asked to appear before the Forum on 16.08.2017 at Sirsa for hearing of the

case.


nor any representative appeared on his behalf. The Comml. Asst from respondent S/Divn. appeared

and requested for grant of next date in the case to file the detailed reply as the case is instituted on

the day of hearing itself.

The request allowed and case is adjourned to next date with the direction to file written

submissions within a week’s time.

Proceedings of the case held at Sirsa on 22/09/2017. The complainant and respondent SDO

were present. The SDO filed written statement stating that the consumer is having an LT connection

with sanctioned load of 11.2 KW. During the period 1/06/2017 to 11/07/2017 energy bill issued for

Rs. 130664/- as per reading recorded 12217 Kwh and 19480 Kvah. Meter of the consumer replaced

on 1/06/2017 as per Nigam instruction to provide Kvah facility. The previous consumption from

January to June was as follows:

Jan, 17 846 Kwh.

Feb., 17 1117 Kwh.

March, 17 933 Kwh.

April, 17 1062 Kwh.

May, 17 1524 Kwh.

June, 17 7821 Kwh.

Hence the difference of KVAH and Kwh rectified and an amount of Rs. 36894/- credited to

the consumer account. The complainant was present and argued that refund allowed is much less

than what he is entitled for however, no specific grounds for further relief were put forth before the

Forum.

After examining the records in the case file and hearing of the parties the Forum decides to

dispose of the complaint in terms of the reply filed by the respondent SDO and without any further

directions to the Licensee in the matter. The case is closed. Both the parties to bear their own cost.






Case No. DH/CGRF-1842/2017 Date of Institution:16.08.2017 Date of Hearing: 16.08.2017 & 22/09/2017 Date of Order:22/09/2017



In the matter of complaint of Sh. Dharam Pal Gupta c/o Amar Trading Co. 22 SCF Mandi

Road Gate No.4, Sirsa regarding wrong billing.


V/s


…….Respondents


Present




ORDER

Sh. Dharam Pal Gupta c/o Amar Trading Co. 22 SCF Mandi Road Gate No.4, Sirsa has got

an electricity connection bearing A/C No. 8109470000 under SDO/Op I/Area Sub-Division, DHBVN,

Sirsa, hence this Forum has jurisdiction to hear the complaint.

The complainant has filed the present complaint stating therein that his meter was running fast. On 17.07.17 he requested the S/Divn. to check the meter. The meter was removed and sent to Lab on

28.07.17 and actually checked on 11.08.17. No checking report was given and he was advised to pay

the bill in full which is not justified. The complainant requested for correction of his bill.



The proceedings of the case held at Sirsa on 16.08.17. The complainant and representative of

S/divn were present. The complainant presented his case by arguing that his old meter was defective

and recording consumption on higher side. The meter was checked in the lab. No report was shown to

him and he was advised to pay the bills as per incorrect and inflated reading recorded by the meter. The

new meter is ok and recording reading correctly. The complainant requested that the report of lab is

doubtful and the meter may be got checked from some other lab and he may not be forced to pay the

inflated bills.

The S/divn. representative filed written reply vide No.2570 dated 16.08.17 stating that the consumer lodged complaint on 17.07.17 challenging accuracy of the meter. The meter was removed and

referred to M&T lab wherein it was found OK with reading as 17221. The copies of consumption data

and lab report also placed on record. The reading of new meter also verified on 16/08/2017 and found to

be 88 KWH, seals intact and MDI recorded as 2.1 kw. The S/Divn representative was advised to share

the details with the complainant. The complainant requested that his meter may be got checked from

Hisar Lab.

After hearing both the parties, the Forum directed that the old meter of the consumer may be got

checked from Hisar M&T lab after getting requisite fee deposited from the consumer. The present

description of the load with appliances and checking report of Hisar M&T lab may be placed on record on

or before next date. The case is adjourned to next date for final hearing.

The proceedings of the case held at Sirsa on 22/09/2017. The complainant and respondent SDO

were present. The SDO placed a copy of the report of the checking of the meter from Hisar Lab carried

out in the presence of the complainant representative as duly signed on behalf of the consumer. The lab

report confirms the working of meter within permissible limits without any visible abnormality during internal inspection. Load survey/tamper data could not be downloaded. The respondent SDO also placed

a copy of the meter manufacturer’s report dated 20/09/2017 which states that as the meter is burnt,

broken and opened so the data cannot be downloaded and report generated. The complainant argued

that his meter is faulty and account be overhauled as per past consumption.

After examining the records in the case file, hearing of the parties and taking into consideration

the checking report of the second lab from Hisar for which the complainant requested during the

previous hearing, which declares the meter working OK after the similar report from Sirsa lab, the Forum

decides not to interfere in the matter and dispose of the complaint without any direction to the Licensee

in the matter. The case is closed. Both the parties to bear their own cost.





Regulations-2016.





Present:-


Rajesh K Sharma, Member/Accounts


In the matter of complaint of Sh. Parveen Kumar H.N.1172 Sector 14-P Hisar regarding

extension of load and replacement of meter.


V/s

1. XEN/Op. Division No.I, DHBVN, Hisar.



Appearance:-


For the Respondent: 1.Nodal Officer, CGRF, DHBVN, Hisar.

2. SDO(OP), City, Hisar.



ORDER Sh. Parveen Kumar H.N.1172 Sector14-P Hisar has got an electricity connection bearing

account No. 5595420000 under SDO (OP) City S/Divn. Hisar hence this Forum has jurisdiction


The complainant has filed present complaint stating that he applied for extension of load

on 6.6.15 vide application No.5270645190 and deposited Rs.3700.00 as fee for the same.

Meter security of Rs.2609.00 also deposited on 29.9.15 vide Receipt No.559542038523.

However the load has not been extended and meter not replaced till date of filing of compliant.

The complainant requested for Redressal of his grievance and appropriate action against the

official responsible for the delay and demand of illegal gratification.




were present. The complainant presented his case by arguing that his application for extension

of load and replacement of meter has not been processed during the last two years, he was

deliberately harassed and bribes were demanded by Nigam officials for release of

load/replacement of meter. He demanded immediately release of load and replacement of

meter and action against erring officer/official and compensation as per rules.

The respondent SDO was present and informed the Forum that the S/D team visited

consumer premises for replacement of meter on 6.9.17 but the consumer refused for getting the

meter installed. It was also stated by the SDO that the release of load is delayed on a/c of

system constraints (capacity of T/F) in the area. However, no proof for the same was placed on

records.

The complainant acknowledged that a team of DHBVN indeed visited his house on

6.9.17 with meter only but without the incoming service cable and asked him to arrange for the

service cable or give them money for purchasing service cable from the market whereas the

responsibility for providing the incoming service cable is of the Nigam as per rules. Hence the

meter could not be installed.

After hearing the parties the Forum finds that there is inordinate delay of about two years

in processing the request of applicant for extension of load and replacement of meter without

any cogent and justifiable grounds, hence deficiency in service. The Forum therefore decides

that:

1. The meter of consumer replaced within two days positively by providing the

incoming service cable of prescribed length at Nigam cost and existing meter

removed and sealed in the presence of respondent SDO and consumer for further

action as per Nigam instructions.

2. Compensation of Rs.3000 (maximum) as prescribed under HERC standards of

performance prescribed by the HERC vide Notification No. HERC/04/2004 pursuant

to section 57 and section 59 read with sub section 2 (za) and 2 (zb) of the Electricity

Act.-2003 for causing inordinate delay in processing of the application of the

complainant. The amount of compensation be paid to the consumer by recovering

from erring officials.

The Forum is not passing any orders with regard to allegation of demands of

bribe by Nigam officials being no jurisdiction over such matters and the complainant is at liberty

to approach appropriate authorities in this regard. Case is closed. No cost on either side.












(K.D.Bansal) (Rajesh K Sharma) (Manu Bishnoi) Member Technical Member/Accounts Independent Member


DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM D-BLOCK, Ground Floor, Vidyut Sadan, Vidyut Nagar, Hisar-125 005 Telephone No. 01662-223081 (website: www.dhbvn.com) (e-mail ID: [email protected]) ___________________________________________________________ Case No. DH/CGRF-1845/2017 Date of Institution: 16.08.2017 Date of Hearing: 07.09.2017 Date of Order: 07.09.2017 Before the Forum for Redressal of Consumer Grievances, DHBVN.

Present:-




In the matter of complaint of Sh. Mahender Soni, H.N.951, HB Colony Sector 1-4 Hisar

regarding release of new connection.


V/s

1. XEN/Op. Division No.I, DHBVN, Hisar.

2.SDO(OP), City S/Divn. DHBVN, Hisar.


Appearance:-



2. Respondent SDO (OP), City, Hisar.



ORDER Sh. Mahinder Soni, H.N.951, HB Colony Sector 1-4 Hisar has applied a new electricity

connection under SDO (OP) City S/Divn. Hisar hence this Forum has jurisdiction to hear the

complaint.

The complainant has filed present complaint stating that he applied a new domestic

connection on 17.07.2017 and deposited all the prescribed fees with the respondent SDO.

However the connection has not been released. The complainant requested for release of his

connection at the earliest.



of the case. The proceedings held at Hisar on 07.09.2017. The complainant was not present. The

respondent SDO was present. The respondent SDO filed written reply through Nodal Officer

vide No.257 dated 07.09.17 stating that the consumer applied for new connection for which

SCO was issued on 18.7.2017. However, the SCO could not be affected due to interruption of

RAPDRP software and now the connection has been released and meter installed at consumer

premises on 1.9.2017 hence the grievance already redressed and consumer is satisfied.

As the connection has already been released and grievance of complainant redressed,

the Forum decides not to be pursue the case further. The case is closed. No cost on either side.



(K.D.Bansal) (Rajesh K Sharma) (Manu Bishnoi) Member Technical Member/Accounts Independent Member


DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM D-BLOCK, Ground Floor, Vidyut Sadan, Vidyut Nagar, Hisar-125 005 Telephone No. 01662-223081 (website: www.dhbvn.com) (e-mail ID: [email protected]) ___________________________________________________________ Case No. DH/CGRF-1846/2017 Date of Institution: 16.08.2017 Date of Hearing: 12.09.2017 Date of Order: 13.09.2017


Present:-




In the matter of complaint of Sh. Sanjay Singla r/o D-639, Chawla Colony

Ballabgarh, Faridabad regarding wrong billing.


V/s

1. Xen/Op. DHBVN, Ballabgarh. 2.SDO/Op. S/U S/Divn. DHBVN, Ballabgarh.


Appearance:-

For Complainant: 1. Present. For the Respondent: 1. Nodal Officer, CGRF, DHBVN, Hisar




ORDER

Sh. Sanjay Singla r/o D-639, Chawla Colony Ballabgarh has got an electricity connection

bearing A/C No. 9959001000 under SDO/Op. S/U S/D Ballabgarh hence this Forum has jurisdiction

to hear the complaint. The complainant has filed the present complaint stating therein that in the bill for the month of April-2017 KVAH reading has been shown as 30451 which is abnormally high leading to bill of Rs.432778.00. The consumer stated that there is some error in the KVAH reading and requested for

Redressal of his grievance at the end of concerned SDO.



The proceedings held at Faridabad on 12.09.2017. The complainant and representative of

SDO were present. The written statement on behalf of SDO was filed vide No.2900 dated 31.08.17

stating that the consumer has approached his S/d in the matter with the request to check the meter from M&T lab. The meter got checked in the presence of consumer and as per report of Lab vide

No.663 dated 11.05.2017 the meter working is in order hence the bills have been prepared on actual consumption basis. An amount of Rs.183382.00 is outstanding and he has not made any payment

after 3/2017 hence supply disconnected on a/c of defaulting amount. The copy of Lab report has also been placed on record.

The complainant was present and argued his case in line with written statement insisting that

the KVAH reading difference of 20451 taken for billing purpose in the month of April-2017 is

incorrect & he should be billed by taking KVAH reading as per standard power factor of .9. The

complainant also brought out that his meter was replaced in the month of October 2016 but MCO was not entered till March-2017 and there appears to be some error in posting of MCO/IR in MCO which needs to be checked and bill corrected accordingly. Complainant also placed on record copies

of electricity bills for relevant period.

After examining the record in case file and hearing arguments of parties, the Forum decides

that the energy account of consumer may be overhauled from the date of MCO i.e. 25.10.16 to the date of disconnection by taking IR of KVAH as per new meter installed at consumer premises on 25.10.16. The recoverable amount may be worked out accordingly after giving credit of the amount

already paid and the electricity supply restored within a week’s time after deposit of revised amount

of bill by the consumer. Case is closed. Both the parties to bear their own cost.










Given under our hands on this day of 13th September- 2017.




Case No. DH/CGRF- 1847/2017 Date of Institution: 17/08/2017 Date of Hearing: 22/09/2017 Date or Order 25.09.2017



In the matter of complaint of Sh. Narender Kalra s/o Sh.Khan Chand Looks Tailor, Rori

Bazar Sirsa regarding wrong billing.


V/s

1 Xen/Op. City Division, DHBVN, Sirsa 2 SDO (OP) Ind. Area Sub-Division, DHBVN, Sirsa

…….Respondents


Present




ORDER

Sh. Narender Kalra s/o Sh. Khan Chand Looks Tailor, Rori Bazar, Sirsa has got an electricity

connection bearing account No.7103767777 under SDO/Op Industrial Area Sub-Division, DHBVN,


The complainant has filed the present complaint stating therein that he is a regular paying

customer of DHBVN. For the last two months display of meter installed at his shop became

defective. On non receipt of bills he approached sub division office and bill on average basis given

to him. He lodged complaint in the matter with the SDO. Meter was replaced and old meter sent to

M&T Lab, checked in his presence and no defect reported to him. Now an amount of Rs.91835/-

has been debited in his account which is wrong and unjustified. The complainant requested for

correction of his bill.


and both the parties were asked to appear before the Forum on 22/09/2017 at Sirsa for hearing of

the case.

Proceedings of the case held at Sirsa on 22/09/2017. The complainant and respondent

SDO were present. The complainant argued the case in line with written submission and insisted for

withdrawal of Rs. 91835/- debited in his account wrongly. The respondent SDO filed written reply

vide No. 2731 dated 04/09/2016 stating therein that premises of consumer was checked by (OP)

Wing vide LL-1 No.9/623 dated 27.7.17 having load of 5 KW. Meter removed from site and sent to

Lab for verification. During checking reading was not visible and display defective hence account of

consumer overhauled as per recent instructions circulated vide Nigam SC No. D-25/2017 on the

basis of load for the period of 12 months and notice for difference of Rs.91835.00 sent to consumer

on 16.8.2017. A copy of LL-1, consumption data from 6/15 to 7/17 & M&T Lab report also placed on

records.

The checking carried out vide LL-1 9/623 contain remarks that the meter is installed on pole

outside the premises of the consumer. Connected load found as 4.39 as against the sanctioned

load of 5 KW. Meter reading display shown abnormal hence meter removed, packed and referred

to M&T Lab.

The M&T Lab report vide No. 966/918 dated 10/08/2017 contains no other

remarks/observations except that “meter seals are intact and display defective”.

The consumption data of the consumer from 6/2015 to 7/2017 shows the following

consumption pattern:

6/2015 to 7/15 1055 7/2015 to 9/15 1946 9/2015 to 10/15 1526 10/2015 to 11/15 658 11/2015 to 12/15 1047 12/2015 to 12/15 965 12/2015 to 1/16 1085 1/2016 to 2/16 1063 2/2016 to 3/16 802 3/2016 to 4/16 1023

4/2016 to 5/16 1179 (Name change from Kamal Rani/Ashok Kumar) 5/2016 to 7/16 847 7/2016 to 7/16 0 7/16 to 8/2016 0 8/16 to 9/2016 0 9/16 to 10/2016 0 7/16 to 11/2016 5441 11/16 to 12/2016 1009 12/16 to 1/2017 1251 1/17 to 2/2017 1212 2/17 to 3/2017 816 3/17 to 4/2017 930 4/17 to 5/2017 0 4/17 to 6/2017 0 6/17 to 7/2017 0 7/17 to 9/2017 744 The consumption data as above shows consumption consistently in the range of about 1000

Kwh/month being NDS connection till January, 2017. The readings have been duly taken and billed

up to 1/2017 as above. The Sales circular No. 25/2017 dated 3/07/2017 provides that SDO M&T

Lab will check all kinds of tampering including the internal circuit. He will also check the accuracy on

the test bench and record the details in the report. However, the lab report dated 10/08/2017 in this

case only states the seals are intact and display defective.

Considering all the above facts on records and hearing the parties, the Forum decides that

the period under dispute where the actual consumption is not available i.e from January, 2017 to the

date of replacement of meter may be overhauled as per basis provided in regulation No. 6.9.1 (1) (a

to c) whichever is higher, of HERC Electricity Supply Code duly adopted by the Licensee vide sales

circular No. D-26/2016. The complaint is allowed to the above extent.










Regulations-2016.






Case No. DH/CGRF- 1848/2017 Date of Institution: 17/08/2017 Date of Hearing: 22/09/2017 & 24/10/2017 Date of order: 25/10/2017


1. K D Bansal, Member Technical-cum Chairman 2. Rajesh Sharma, Member Accounts

In the matter of complaint of Sh. Ramesh Kumar r/o Prem Gali Kirti Nagar, Sirsa



V/s


…….Respondents


None

For the Respondent 1 Nodal Officer/CGRF, DHBVN, Hisar 2 Representative of SDO



ORDER

Sh. Ramesh Kumar r/o Prem Gali Kirti Nagar, Sirsa has got an electricity connection

bearing account No.9983470000 under SDO/Op City Sub-Division, DHBVN, Sirsa, hence this


The complainant has filed the present complaint through Sh. Devender stating therein

that meter installed at his premises became defective and was replaced. Defective meter got

checked from Lab and found OK. Still DHBVN has debited Rs.24958.00 in his account which is

wrong. Complainant requested for correction of bill as per actual reading.


Nigam and both the parties were asked to appear before the Forum on 22/09/2017 at Sirsa for


The proceedings of the case held at Sirsa on 22/09/2017. The complainant was not

present nor did any representative appear on his behalf. The representative of respondent SDO

was present who filed written reply vide No. 7915 dated 04/09/2016 stating therein that meter

of consumer was replaced on 19.5.17 and bill raised to consumer upto reading 16955. Meter of

consumer was sent to Lab and as per lab report No.56 dated 15.6.17 meter working found

within permissible limit with reading 16955. Copy of Lab report placed on record.

As the complainant was not present and being the first hearing, the case is adjourned to

next hearing to provide him a final opportunity to present his case. Case is adjourned to next

date.

Proceedings of the case held at Sirsa on 24/10/2017. The complainant was not present

nor did any representative appear on his behalf. The representative of the sub division was

present and reiterated his earlier arguments.

As the complainant has not appeared before the Forum on two successive dates to

present his case, the Forum decides to dispose off the complaint in terms of the reply of the

respondent SDO being the consumer billed on consumption basis hence no merit in the case.

Case is closed no cost on either side.






File be consigned to record. Given under our hands on this day of 25th October 2017.




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. Sandeep Garg, H No. A-203, Kenwood Tower,

Charmwood Village, Faridabad regarding wrong billing.


V/s

1. Xen/Op. Old, DHBVN, Faridabad. 2.SDO/Op. Mathura Road S/D, DHBVN, Ballabgarh.


Appearance:-


2. Respondent SDO



ORDER

Sh. Sandeep Garg, H No. A-203 Kenwood tower Charmwood Village, Faridabad has got

an electricity connection bearing A/C No. 775315000 under (OP) Mathura Road Sub-Division,

DHBVN, Faridabad, hence this Forum has jurisdiction to hear the complaint.

The complainant has filed the present complaint stating therein that highly abnormal excess

bill of Rs.536466.00 in r/o his connection has been raised vide Bill No.775310564213 Dt.7.7.16 despite his flat being unoccupied. Consumer requested for correction of his bill.


the case. The proceedings held at Faridabad on 12.09.2017. The consumer and respondent SDO

were present. Complainant argued his case in line with written submission and stated that he is

being harassed on a/c of excessive billing i.e. Rs.353251.00 in the m/o 8/2016 and Rs.536466.00 in the m/o 10/16. His meter has also been removed without his knowledge and not being reinstalled.

The bill is not corrected by the respondent SDO. Complainant placed on record all his previous bills in r/o the connection.

The SDO submitted reply through Nodal Officer/CGRF vide his memo No. 1573 dated

01.09.2017, stating therein same reading bill issued from 9/2015 to 4/2016 and reading remained

balance in meter hence balance reading bills issued to consumer from 26.6.16 to 28.8.16 for the

consumption recorded from 40977 to 77302 i.e. 36325 units amounting to Rs.311175.00 with due date 20.09.16. MMC bills issued before this reading stands adjusted. From 9/15 to 4/16 sanctioned

load of consumer was 10.0 KW and billing of consumer as per actual consumption. The SDO also

placed on record consumption data for the last 5 years and report of M&T lab DHBVN Faridabad

regarding checking of meter. The SDO orally submitted that the billing has been done based on balance reading in the meter hence no irregularity in the bill. The consumption data from 2/2012 to

10/2016 shown as follows:-

Period Consumption (in KWH)

02/2012 675 04/2012 772 06/2012 388 08/2012 1903 10/2012 1225 12/2012 536 02/2013 726 04/2013 495 06/2013 2440 08/2013 2580 10/2013 1382 12/2013 732 02/2014 603

04/2014 1249 06/2014 1199 08/2014 3356 10/2014 1093 12/2014 900 02/2015 1102 04/2015 671 06/2015 1232 07/2015 2057 09/2015 285 12/2015 0 02/2016 0 04/2016 0 06/2016 3638 08/2016 36325 10/2016 20776 The meter readings have been taken and bills issued on reading basis up to 9/2015. The

reading in the meter in 9/2015 was 37339. The meter was removed at the reading 98078 during 9/2016 vide SJO No. 5/532 as also verified by the M&T Lab, Faridabad with meter status as DEAD

STOP. Thus the consumption of 60739 (98078-37339) in a period of approx. one year is not at all justified with a sanctioned of 10 KW and particularly meter status shown as dead stop during

checking by the M&T Lab. Considering all the above facts on record and hearing both the parties the Forum decides

that the account of consumer for the disputed period i.e. from 9/2015 to 9/2016 may be overhauled

by taking the base as prescribed under Regulation No. 6.9.1(1) (a to c) whichever is higher, of HERC Electricity Supply Code duly adopted by the Licensee vide sales circular No. D-26/2016.

Case is closed. Both the parties to bear their own cost. As required under Haryana State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Guidelines for







Given under our hands on this day of 20th September-2017.

(K.D. Bansal) (R K Sharma) (Manu Bishnoi) Member Technical-cum-Chairman Member/Accounts Independent Member





1. K D Bansal, Member Technical-cum-Chairma 2. Rajesh Sharma, Member Accounts

In the matter of complaint of Sh. Navjeevan Kumar Bansal H.No.36 C Block, Near

Kamalia Bhawan Sirsa regarding wrong billing.


V/s

1 Xen/Op. S/U Division, DHBVN, Sirsa 2 SDO (OP) S/U Sub-Division, DHBVN, Sirsa

…….Respondents


Present




ORDER

Sh. Navjeevan Kumar Bansal H.No. 36 C Block Near Kamalia Bhawan Sirsa has got an

electricity connection bearing A/C No. T-21-K541-0004 under SDO/Op S/U Sub-Division,


The complainant has filed the present complaint stating therein that suddenly his bill

increased due to fault in meter. He made complaint to SDO and meter was sent to Sirsa Lab.

The complainant requested for correction of his bill.




The proceedings of the case held at Sirsa on 22/09/2017. The complainant and

respondent SDO were present. The respondent SDO filed written reply vide No. 1924 dated

22/09/2016 stating therein that meter of consumer was replaced vide MCO NO.51/703 dated

5.11.16 as per instructions of CE/Comml vide SC NO.D-13/2015. Consumer represented his

office for correction of bill. The relevant record/ledger checked and bills found correct. After that

consumer applied for check of accuracy of meter in M&T Lab Sirsa and deposited Rs.330.0 in

the office vide BA-16 No.25/2629 dated 27.6.17. SJO issued vide No.08/0416 dated 27.6.17

and meter replaced on 19.7.17 and old meter referred to Lab. S/D office issued two letters vide

memo No.1399 dated 25.7.17 and 1437 dated 29.7.17 for checking the meter in the presence of

complainant. Meter was checked in Lab and found burnt from block terminal due to sparking.

Accuracy of meter not given so bill cannot be corrected. Consumption data from 8/2016 to

8/2017 placed on record.

Scrutiny of consumption data filed before Forum it was observed that the meter of the

consumer has been replaced twice in the recent past i.e. 4/2017 and again in 7/2017. The

MCO/details of IR and FR of the meter replaced in 4/2017 not on records.

The case is adjourned to next date with the direction to respondent SDO to place on

records MCO, IR and FR of the meter replaced in 4/2017 besides consumption data of last 3

years. Case adjourned for hearing at Sirsa on 24.10.17.


SDO were present. The SDO filed consumption data and MCO No. 62/703 effected on

20/04/2017. The complainant present and argued that KVAH reading taken during 4/17 to 6/17

are not commensurate with the actual consumption/KWH reading and requested for withdrawal

of excess charges.

Perusal of the consumption data reveals the following:

1. KVAH and KWH recorded on 20/06/2017 are 16353 and 2853 respectively.

2. On the date of checking by M&T Lab on dated 11/08/2017, the readings were 17146

KVAH and 3562 KWH.

3. Consumption in KVAH is 793 units and in KWH 709 units from 20/06/2017 to date of

replacement of meter on 19/07/2017. The power factor of this period comes out to

be 0.894.

The consumer has been billed on actual KVAH consumption basis. The abnormal

KVAH reading for the period 4/17 to 6/2017 may be attributable to inductive load

which is further substantiated by the fact at point no. 3 above. Keeping in view of

above, the Forum find no reason to intervene and decides to dispose off the

complaint in terms of the reply of the respondents.

Case is closed. No. cost on either side.










Present:-




In the matter of complaint of Sh. Devender Kumar Thakur, (through

Sh.Mrityunjay Thakur) r/o H.N. 53 Gali No.7, Vinay Nagar Faridabad regarding levy of

excess charges in bill.


V/s

1. Xen/Op. DHBVN, Greater Faridabad. 2.SDO/Op. S/Divn. DHBVN, Tilpat.


Appearance:- For Complainant: 1. Present. For the Respondent: 1. Nodal Officer, CGRF, DHBVN, Hisar

2. Respondent SDO



. ORDER

Sh. Devender Kumar Thakur r/o H.N. 53 Gali No.7, Vinay Nagar Faridabad has got an

electricity connection bearing A/C No. 2811760000 under Op. S/D DHBVN Tilpat hence this


The complainant has filed the present complaint (through Sh. Mrityunjay Thakur) stating

that his electricity bills have not been generated/delivered despite his several verbal/written

complainants to the concerned DHBVN office. From March 2017 onwards, he is getting regular

bills, however, surcharge has been levied for the period the bills have not actually

delivered/generated and power supply disconnected. The complainants requested for waiver of

surcharge for the period the bills have not been raised and reconnection of his power supply.




The proceedings held at Faridabad on 12.09.2017. The complainant and respondent

SDO were present. The complainant argued the case in line with written submission and also

filed the copies of several emails he sent to SDO for non receipt of bills. The complainant stated

that he is ready to pay the bills excluding undue surcharge and requested for restoration of

supply. The SDO filed reply vide memo No.439 dated 11.09.2017 stating that the bill of

consumer is correct and he has not paid the bills from Feb.2016.

After examining the records in case file and hearing the parties, the Forum finds that the

consumer continued to keep the matter of non receipt of bills taken up with the concerned SDO

as per copies of emails filed on records. The surcharge cannot be levied for the demands

actually not raised. The Forum therefore decides that surcharge levied for the period Feb.2016

to March 2017 in the consumer’s bills may be withdrawn and outstanding amount revised

accordingly. The power supply of consumer may be restored within a week’s time of payment of

revised bills by consumer. Case is closed. No cost on either side.









1 K D Bansal, Member Technical-cum-Chairman 2 Rajesh Sharma, Member Accounts

In the matter of complaint of Sh. Avinash Kumar Suratgariya Bazar near Baba Ram Dev

Mandir, Sirsa regarding wrong billing.


V/s

1 Xen/Op. City Division, DHBVN, Sirsa 2 SDO (OP) I/A Sub-Division, DHBVN, Sirsa


Present

For the Respondent 1 Nodal Officer/CGRF, DHBVN, Hisar 2 Representative



ORDER

Sh. Avinash Kumar Suratgariya Bazar near Baba Ram Dev Mandir, Sirsa has got an

electricity connection bearing A/C No. 5124770000 under SDO/Op Ind Area Sub-Division,


The complainant has filed the present complaint stating therein that suddenly his bill for

Rs.895308.00 has been raised which is incorrect. The complainant requested for correction of

his bill.





present nor any representative appeared on his behalf. The respondent SDO was present who

filed written reply vide No. 2729 dated 04/09/2016 stating therein that consumer is having an

NDS connection with sanctioned load of 1.2 Kw. The premises was checked by (OP) wing as

per consumer complaint dated 4.7.17 vide LL-1 No.20/623 dated 2.8.2017 and load found 1.4

KW and reading as 97127.7 in meter of TGL make cap 10-60. Meter removed and sent for

checking in M&T Lab. Lab report dated 10.8.17 found reading 97127.7 seals intact and

accuracy within permissible limit. During that course system billed one bill on difference of unit

and second bill issued on forced average basis. Forced average bill rectified on the basis of

corresponding month consumption and an amount of Rs.877657.00 credited to consumer

account provisionally.

As the complainant was not present, the Forum decides to adjourn the case to next date

with the direction to SDO to place on record the consumption data for last 5 years. Case

adjourned for hearing at Sirsa on 24.10.17.

Proceedings held at Sirsa on 24/10/2017. The complainant and representative of the

respondent SDO were present. The sub division representative argued in line with written

statement already filed and also placed on record the consumption data of the consumer for last

5 years. The complainant argued that with the sanctioned load of 1.2 KW the bill in lacs of

rupees is not at all possible and there is mal-functioning of the meter.

After examination of the records placed in the case file and hearing of the parties, the

Forum noted that:

1. The consumption data of the consumer for the last several years is consistent and

shows no abnormal variation except during the period under dispute i.e 5/2017

where the consumption shown as 77036 units.

2. The sanctioned load of the consumer is 1.2 KW and on checking vide LL-1 No.

623/20 dated 2/08/2017 the same found approx. the same i.e 1.4 kw.

3. The consumption even after replacement of meter in 7/2017 is in sync with previous

pattern without significant variation.

Keeping in view the above facts on records, abnormality in the meter behavior cannot be

ruled out which has also not been disputed by the respondents. The Forum therefore, decides

that the account of the consumer for the disputed period may be overhauled as per basis

provided in regulation No. 6.9.1 (1) (a to c) whichever is higher, of HERC Electricity Supply

Code duly adopted by the Licensee vide sales circular No. D-26/2016. The complaint is allowed

to the above extent.











FORUM FOR REDRESSAL OF CONSUMER GRIEVANCES DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM D-BLOCK, Ground Floor, Vidyut Sadan, Vidyut Nagar, Hisar-125 005 Telephone No. 01662-223081 (website: www.dhbvn.com) (e-mail ID: [email protected]) ___________________________________________________________ Case No. DH/CGRF-1855/2017 Date of Institution: 25.08.2017 Date of Hearing: 07.09.2017 & 06.10.2017 Dated of Order : 09.10.2017 Before the Forum for Redressal of Consumer Grievances, DHBVN

.

Present:-




In the matter of complaint of M/S Indus Tower Ltd. Site at Pili Mandori Distt. Fatehabad through

Sh. M.S.Chauhan, SCO No. 137 First floor, Sector-13, Karnal regarding wrong billing.


V/s

1. XEN/Op. Division , DHBVN, Fatehabad.

2. SDO (OP), City S/Divn. DHBVN, Bhattu.


Appearance:-

For Complainant: 1. None


2. Respondent SDO(OP), DHBVN, Bhattu.



ORDER

M/S Indus Tower Ltd. Site at Pili Mandori Distt. Fatehabad has got an electricity

connection bearing account No. PM-21/2570 under SDO (OP) S/Divn. Bhattu hence this Forum


The complainant has filed present complaint through Sh. M.S.Chauhan, SCO No. 137

First floor, Sector-13, Karnal stating that :-

1. A sum of Rs.46872.00 & Rs.87329.00 were debited in their bill issued on 10.3.2017 and 20.5.2017 respectively without any details or notice as required under Section 6.10.4 of HERC Regulation No.29/2014.

2. The amount of Rs.46872.00 relates to old account No.PM-21/1872. The account no. of connection changed from PM-21/1872 to PM-21/2570 on change of name to M/S Indus Tower in 02/2016 and they paid all the dues in respect of old and new account as well.

3. It is suspected that an amount of Rs.43822.00 paid through on line mode on 9.12.2015 has not been posted in the account and provisional billing from the date of replacement of meter till 10.1.2016 has not been adjusted.

4. The amount of Rs.87329.00 pertains to defective period of Jan.15 to Nov.2016 is without issue of show cause notice and also incorrect in terms of section 6.9.1.1(a) of HERC regulation No.29/2014 as the overhauling of this period is not permitted on the basis of recorded consumption of new meter as also mentioned in Licensee’s SC No.D-12/2014 and D-17/2014. The meter was healthy in Jan.2015 and recorded 3539 units hence this period not required to be included in account overhauling treating it as defective.

5. The base consumption of Jan.2016 as 3640 units is not recorded consumption but provisional billing. The recorded consumption in 3/2016 is only 468 units but the same has been taken as 4722 units for overhauling which is incorrect. The tariff in the overhauling has also been applied as per new rates applicable from 1.4.2015 which is incorrect.

6. The above charges are in violation of HERC regulation 29/2014 which provides that the amount from the consumer established as recoverable as a result of audit observation or otherwise can be recovered after issue of show cause notice, by issuing separate bill and without surcharge. Accordingly the complainant requested to withdraw Rs.46872.00 plus 87329.00 from

their energy account.



of the case.

The proceedings held at Hisar on 07.09.2017. Earlier the complainant Sh. M.S.Chauhan

requested this Forum through email dated 6.9.17 that due to late communication he is unable to

attend the proceedings at Hisar on 7.9.17 and requested for providing a copy of respondents

reply to his representative Sh. Pawan Kumar enabling him to file the replication. The

representative of complainant & respondent SDO were present in hearing at Hisar on

7/09/2017.

The SDO filed written reply mentioning therein that the amount of Rs.46872.00 debited

in bill of 10.3.2017 is correct as this amount was outstanding in old account No. PM-21/1872 on

a/c of actual consumption i.e.4722 units which was not deposited by the applicant. No notice

was required being the change of name case and continuous process in terms of Licensee’s

instructions No. Ch.103/GM Commercial/376/2005 dated 6.5.14.

Further another amount of Rs.87329.00 debited in the bill of 20.5.17 is also correct and

debited after serving notice vide memo No.355 dated 31.3.17 but as no employee is deputed by

the Company on this Tower site, the notice was received back undelivered.

The defaulting amount of Rs.46872.00 shown against old account No.PM-21/1872 is for

actual consumption from 6.1.16 to 23.2.16. Further the amount paid through online mode on

9.12.15 vide Receipt No.9296655 has been posted in consumer account and this bill relate the

period 11/2015. The bill of 2722 units in the month of 3/2016 is based on actual consumption

and the provisional bill issued in the month of Jan-2016 is not adjustable. The account of

defective period from 1/15 to 11/15 earlier overhauled now revised vide SC&AR No.164/92

dated 5.9.17 and amount debited is Rs.98553.00 instead of Rs.87329.00 for which a notice to

consumer has been issued on 31.3.17. Regarding the provisional billing for the period Jan.15 to

Dec.15 instead of 5/15 to 11/15 not in accordance with Section 6.9.1.1(a) of HERC Regulation

29/2014, the consumption of this account is increased very high after installation of LT CT meter

in place of defective whole current meter. The revised overhauling of a/c done vide SC&AR No.

164/92 dated 5.9.17 as the recorded consumption in 3/2016 is 5190 KWH and not 468 KWH.

The bill issued in 3/2016 in two parts due to change of name. The consumption of old account

No.PM-21/1872 is 4722 units from 6.1.16 to 22.2.16 and bill of new account No.PM-21/2570 is

468 units from 23.2.16 to 5.3.16. Tariff is correct in revised sundry. Notice was issued vide

No.355 dated 31.3.17 before debiting amount and chargeable amount is correct. The reply of

grievance already submitted by his office No. 1207 dated 31.7.17 and memo No.1614 dated

5.2.17 and debited amount is not adjustable. Further the amount of Rs.46872.00 is actual

consumption for the m/o 3/2016 and Rs.27329.00 (now 98653.00) is correct and as per

direction of HERC and Nigam instructions. The copies of ledger account, sundry, MCO, Notice

and M&P reports also place on record.

A copy of reply filed by SDO was provided to the representative of complainant. The

case is adjourned to next date for final hearing as per request of complainant and now listed for

hearing at Hisar on 6.10.17.

The proceedings held at Hisar on 06.10.2017. The complainant was not present nor did

any representative appear on their behalf. However, complainant has filed unsigned rejoined

through email on 23.09.17 which has been taken on record. Complainant has raised following

two issues in rejoinder:-

1. He has admitted the charging made by Nigam for Rs.46872.00 on account of left over units pertaining to connection No.PM-21/1872.

2. Regarding another dispute of Rs.87329.00 complainant raised the procedural issue with regard to serving of notice by Licensee Nigam and also objected revision of charges levied for the defective period.

Respondent SDO was present and informed that written submission to all the points

raised by complainant has already been filed and the charging made by Nigam is in line with

applicable instructions.

The Forum noted that no one from complainant side appeared to argue the case on two

successive hearings. After examination of records placed in case file and hearing of

respondents the Forum decides to dispose of the complaint in terms of reply filed by SDO as the

complainant has already admitted the charging of Rs.46872.00 in its rejoinder dated 23.9.17

and the Forum agrees with the version of Respondents with regard to revision of charges for

defective period on the basis of new consumption as there is abnormal increase in the

consumption. Case is closed. No cost on either side.






File be consigned to record. Given under our hands on this day of 9th October, 2017.




_________________________________________________________ Case No. DH/CGRF-1856/2017




Present:-



In the matter of complaint of Sh. Kedar Singh, s/o Sh. Daya Chand, VPO Ghaso Khurd, Uchana

Distt Jind regarding release of connection.


V/s

1. Xen/Op. Division, DHBVN, Narwana.

2. SDO, (OP) Sub-Division DHBVN, Uchana.


Appearance:-



2. SDO (OP) Uchana



ORDER Sh. Kedar Singh, s/o Sh. Daya Chand, VPO Ghaso Khurd, Uchana Distt Jind has

applied for a tubewell connection under (OP) S/D DHBVN, Uchana, hence this Forum has


The complainant has filed the present complaint stating therein that he applied for a

tubewell connection with (OP) S/D Uchana. The S/Divn. issued memo No.463 dated 10.6.2016

for deposit of consent money of Rs.30000.00 but the said notice has never been received by

him due to negligence of postal department. He approached the S/D for deposit of consent

money but deposit is not accepted by the S/Divn. in spite of his numerous requests and visit to

the Sub Divn. The consumer requested for Redressal of his grievance.



of the case.

The proceedings held at Jind on 04.09.2017. The complainant was not present and the

respondent SDO was present. The SDO orally submitted before the forum that the record of the

S/D was damaged/burnt during reservation agitation in the year 2016 and placed a copy of FIR

No.0032 dated 23.02.2016 lodged with the police in the matter. A copy of notice dated 10.6.16

said to be issued to the consumer was also produced before the Forum. The letter dated

10.06.016 contains the reference of destruction of record and requested consumer to submit

duplicate file alongwith requisite dues. The SDO also submitted before the forum that the notice

during 6/2016 has been issued to the consumer based on the BA-16 records left in the sub

division. The SDO was asked if the application of the complainant can be revived, the reply was

in affirmation.

After perusal of the records available in the case file and hearing the respondent SDO,

the Forum decides that the application of the consumer may be revived in terms of applicable

Nigam instructions and release of agriculture tubewell connection may be processed after

completion of usual formalities and taking prescribed deposits from the applicant. The case is













(K.D.Bansal) (Rajesh Sharma) MemberTechnical-cum-Chairman Member/Accounts


DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM D-BLOCK, Ground Floor, Vidyut Sadan, Vidyut Nagar, Hisar-125 005 Telephone No. 01662-223081 (website: www.dhbvn.com) (e-mail ID: [email protected]) ___________________________________________________________ Case No. DH/CGRF-1857/2017 Date of Institution: 25.08.2017 Date of Hearing: 12.09.2017 Date of Order : 13.09.2017


Present:-




In the matter of complaint of Sh. Bhola Ram r/o F-1/22 Lakkarpur Faridabad

regarding updation of consumer details in billing system.


V/s

1. Xen/Op. Old DHBVN, Faridabad. 2.SDO/Op. Matura Road S/Divn. DHBVN, Faridabad.


Appearance:- For Complainant: 1. None. For the Respondent: 1. Nodal Officer, CGRF, DHBVN, Hisar

2. Respondent SDO

.



ORDER

Sh. Bhola Ram r/o F-1/22 Lakkarpur Faridabad has got an electricity connection bearing

A/C No. 0338940000 under SDO/Op. Matura Road S/D DHBVN Faridabad hence this Forum has

jurisdiction to hear the complaint. The complainant has filed the present complaint requesting therein for getting his mobile

number and email ID updated in the billing system of DHBVN and send the bills as per usage. The complaint was forwarded to the Nodal Officer for filing the written reply of the Nigam and


The proceedings held at Faridabad on 12.09.2017. The complainant was not present but the respondent SDO was present. The SDO filed reply vide memo No.1635 dated 11.09.2017 stating that the requisite consumer details have been updated in the billing system and also the billing of

consumer is as per actual consumption.

The complainant was not present and keeping in view compliance report filed by respondent

SDO, the Forum decides to close the cost. No cost on either side.

File be consigned to record. Given under our hands on this day of 13th September- 2017.




Case No. DH/CGRF-1858/2017 Date of Institution: 25/08/2017 Date of Hearing: 22/09/2017 & 24/10/2017 Date of order: 25/10/2017


1. K D Bansal, Member Technical-cum-Chirman 2 Rajesh Sharma, Member Accounts

In the matter of complaint of Sh. Sandeep Kumar S/o Sh.Balbir Singh near Parshu Ram

Chowk, Sirsa regarding wrong billing.


V/s


…….Respondents


None

For the Respondent 1 Nodal Officer/CGRF, DHBVN, Hisar 2 Representative of respondent SDO



ORDER

Sh. Sandeep Kumar S/o Sh. Balbir Singh near Parshu Ram Chowk, Sirsa has got an

electricity connection bearing A/C No. 0121480000 under SDO/Op City Sub-Division, DHBVN,


The complainant has filed the present complaint stating therein that his meter installed at

Workshop became defective and was replaced by DHBVN. Defective meter found OK during

testing. The department has wrongly raised bill of Rs.226000.00 which is on higher side. The

complainant requested for correction of his bills.






was present who filed written reply vide No. 7916 dated 04/09/2016 stating therein that meter of

consumer was replaced on 6.7.17 vide SJO No.85/3805 dated 12.6.17 and old meter referred to

Lab. As per Lab report No.75 dated 17.8.17 reading found 5651.7 KWH and 36729.8 KVAH and

working within permissible limit. A copy of Lab report and consumption data for the period

Dec.2015 to Aug-2017 also placed on record.

An examination of record revealed that meter of consumer has been replaced twice in

recent past i.e. during Jan.2017 and again in July 2017 where in the reply of SDO it is said to be

replaced only in July-17. The basis of bill of Rs. 226000/- has also not been stated in the written

reply. Complainant was also not present to argue his case. The Forum therefore decides to

adjourn case to next date with the direction to respondent SDO to place on record copies of

both the MCOs affected in Jan.17 and July 2017 alongwith initial and closing readings and basis

of bill of Rs. 226000 raised to the consumer which has been disputed under the present

compliant..

The proceedings of the case held at Sirsa. The complainant was not present.

Representative of respondent SDO was present and filed copies of the documents i.e. MCO

dated 9/12/2016 and copy of CA-22 in respect of MCO 85/308 pertaining to the case. Regarding

the bill of Rs. 2,26,000/- it was stated that the consumer has not paid the bills since 3/2017

hence the amount is on account of pending bills alongwith surcharge.

As the complainant has not appeared before the Forum on two successive dates to

present his case, the Forum decides to dispose off the complaint in terms of the reply of the

respondent SDO being the consumer billed on consumption basis, meter working found ok

during checking hence no merit in the case. Case is closed. No. cost on either side.










Case No. DH/CGRF- 1859 /2017 Date of Institution: 28/08/2017 Date of Hearing: 31/08/2017 Date of Order : 05/09/2017


1 K.D.Bansal, Member Technical-cum-Chairman 2 Rajesh Sharma, Member Accounts

In the matter of complaint of Sh. Yogender s/o sh.Umed Singh Village Khayra PO Khatod, Distt.

Mohindergarh regarding waiver of surcharge


V/s

XEN (OP) DHBVN Mohindergarh SDO (OP) City Mohindergarh

…….Respondents


Present

For the Respondent 1 Nodal Officer CGRF DHBVN Hisar. 2 Respondent SDO



ORDER

Sh. Yogender s/o sh.Umed singh Village Khayara PO Khatod, distt. Mohindergarh has got an

electricity connection bearing A/C CT-51-0034 under SDO, City Sub-Division Mohindergarh hence this


The complainant has filed the present complaint stating therein that his bill for tubewell

connection for the period Dec. 2006 to Jan-2007 was initially issued wrong by DHBVN and could only

be corrected in the year 2017 after the decision of CGRF on the complaint lodged by him in the matter.

The complainant stated that he could not avail the benefit of surcharge waiver scheme lodged by

Nigam from time to time in the intervening period due to non correction of the bill. The complainant

requested this Forum for waiver of surcharge.



case.

The proceedings held at Narnaul on 31.08.2017. The complainant and respondent SDO were

present. The SDO filed written reply vide No.2743 dated 31.08.17 denying all the contentions of the

complainant. The respondent SDO also submitted before the Forum that the complainant has earlier

approached this Forum on the same matter and the application already decided by this forum vide

Order dated 27.06.2017. The SDO further stated that the complainant has approached the Electricity

Ombudsman Haryana and raised the same issue in his appeal. The case has already been heard and

decided. The complainant argued the case in line with written submissions and insisted for withdrawal

of entire amount of surcharge as he could not avail the benefit of SWS on account of in-action at the

part of Licensee Nigam.

After perusal of record in the case file and hearing both the parties, the Forum finds that the

application of the complainant in the same matter has already decided and disposed of by this Forum

in the case No.1767/2017 dated 27.06.2017. The appeal of the consumer against the decision of this

forum also stands adjudicated by Electricity Ombudsman, Haryana in Appeal No.29/2017 dated

21.08.17. As such the Forum decides to dispose of the present complaint in view of previous decisions.

No cost on either side. Case is closed.





Regulations-2016.





DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM D-BLOCK, Ground Floor, Vidyut Sadan, Vidyut Nagar, Hisar-125 005 Telephone No. 01662-223081 (website: www.dhbvn.com) (e-mail ID: [email protected]) ___________________________________________________________ Case No. DH/CGRF-1862/2017 Date of Institution: 29.08.2017 Date of Hearing: 12.09.2017 & 10.10.2017 Date of Order : 11.10.2017


Present:-

Sh. K.D.Bansal, Member Technical-cum-Chairman Sh. Rajesh Sharma, Member/Accounts Sh. Manu Bishnoi, Independent Member

In the matter of complaint Smt Monika Aggarwal H.N.B-02, Green Field Colony

Faridabad (correspondence address: H No. 1153 Sector-37/B, Chandigarh) regarding

wrong billing.


V/s

1. Xen/Op. Old, DHBVN, Faridabad. 2.SDO/Op. Mathura Road S/D, DHBVN, Faridabad.


Appearance:-


2. Respondent SDO



ORDER

Smt. Monika Aggarwal H.No. B-02, Green Field Colony, Faridabad has got an electricity

connection bearing A/C No. 888735000 under (OP) Mathura Road Sub-Division, DHBVN,


The complainant has filed the present complaint stating therein that she has a domestic

connection with 1.4 KW load on her 50 sq yards flat. Her electricity consumption from 9/2009 to

3/2013 (42 months) has been shown as 10 units only. Again, consumption from 3/13 to 7/14 i.e. 16

months is 604 units. Suddenly thereafter the electricity consumption from 3.7.14 to 3.9.14 has been

shown as 4341 units and in next billing cycle from 3.9.14 to 3.11.14, consumption has been shown

as 5550 units. Thus consumption during 4 months period works out to 9891 units which is not

possible her flat remained almost vacant. The electricity supply was disconnected on 3.11.2014 but

billing continued from 3.11.14 to 3.1.15 as 3352 units. Reading at the time of disconnection was

shown as 15726 though it was not verified nor shown to her. The amount payable upto 3.11.2014

was Rs.69953.00 which jumped to Rs.448333.00 as per bill dated 10.3.16 which has now been

amended to Rs.43345.00 for which no detail has been supplied to her. Amended bill dated

10.3.2016 was communicated on 2.2.2017 on email without any details. The complainant stated that

amended bill of Rs.43345.00 is absolutely wrong and does not match with the actual and past

consumption and needs to be corrected.



the case.

The proceedings of the case held at Faridabad on 12.09.2017. The complainant was not

present. Respondent SDO was present. The SDO submitted reply through Nodal Officer/CGRF vide

his memo No. 1634 dated 11.09.2017, stating therein that consumer has paid last bill Rs. 233/- on

upto reading of 5830 on 21/05/2014. The final reading of meter is 15726 as per PDCO No.342075/14-15 dated 12.6.15 affected on 15.6.15. Hence billing of consumer already corrected on

29.5.17 vide SC&AR No.R-5/28 and amount of Rs.43346.00 is payable by consumer as per actual

consumption.

The respondent SDO was asked to produce the copies of PDCO, challan and sundries No.

66/R-99, 68/R-62 which are relevant documents to the case. The documents were not readily

available. The case adjourned to next date with the direction to SDO to produce relevant records.

Both the parties to remain present failing which, the case shall be proceeded and decided based on

the available records.

Proceedings held at Faridabad on 10.10.2017. Complainant and respondent SDO were present. Respondents were asked to produce the documents required during earlier hearing.

However detail i.e. copy of PDCO, challan and sundries were not produced. The details of PDCO

written on plain paper along with posting of sundrey in the system without any detail/calculation were

produced. Complainant filed rejoinder stating that:-

1. He approached the Forum after his bills were corrected in the first instance by the S/D to which he was not satisfied hence statement of respondents that Bills have already been corrected, is not correct.

2. In the past his bills were corrected twice and on both occasions it was established that the premises was locked and bills were corrected after charging requisite MMC. Thus his contention of the premises remaining vacant for most of the time is established and may be taken on record by this forum.

3. In the reply of respondent dated 11.9.17 date of PDCO is mentioned as 12.6.15, wherein as per details of PDCO submitted before the Forum now the date is shown as 3.11.14 which shows that PDCO records are incorrect. Copy of replication filed by complainant were given to the respondents for their

comments but no reply to the additional points raised by complainants filed by respondents and reply

already on records were requested to be taken on record as such.

After considering the records available in case file and hearing of parties, the forum finds

that the charging made to consumer account on account of consumption shown in the month from

July to Nov. 2014 i.e. 4341 and 5550 units is not established. The Forum further finds that no proper

record pertaining to readings, billing and metering events of consumer has been maintained and

produced before the forum by the respondents in spite of specific direction. The different dates of

PDCO mentioned in the reply of respondents shows manipulation in records. It is further noted that

same date of reading and PDCO has been claimed in reply of respondents which is not tenable. The

forum therefore decides that charging made to consumer for the period July to Nov. 2014 i.e. for

4341 and 5550 units may be withdrawn alongwith surcharge and consumer account overhauled

accordingly. The forum further decides that compensation of Rs.1000.00 on account of non redressal of billing dispute of consumer in time leading to his harassment be paid to the consumer

as the same is construed as deficiency in service for the purpose. The amount of compensation is to

be provided after recovery of same from delinquent officer/official. Case is closed. No cost on either

side.










Case No. DH/CGRF- 1865/2017 Date of Institution: 04.09.2017 Date of Hearing: 19.09.2017 Date of Order : 20.09.2017



In the matter of complaint of Sh. Rajesh Kumar s/o Sh. Sheesh Ram, VPO Bithwana, Rewari

regarding reconnection of power supply.


V/s

XEN (OP) DHBVN Rewari SDO (OP) S/U S/Divn. Rewari

…….Respondents

Appearance:-

For Complainant:

None

For the Respondent

Nodal Officer CGRF DHBVN Hisar. Respondent SDO



ORDER

Sh. Rajesh Kumar s/o Sh. Sheesh Ram, VPO Bithwana, Rewari has got an electricity connection

bearing account No. PC-21-0063A under (OP) S/U Sub Divn Rewari hence this Forum has jurisdiction to

hear the complaint. The complainant has filed the present complaint stating that his connection was dis-connected due

to nonpayment of bills. However he opted surcharge waiver scheme of Nigam and already paid four installments under the scheme. The complainant requested for reconnection of power supply.


the parties were asked to appear before the Forum on 19.09.2017 at Rewari for hearing of the case. The proceedings held at Rewari on 19.09.17. The complainant was not present but respondent

SDO was present. The SDO submitted reply through Nodal Officer/CGRF, vide his memo No. 2592 dated 18.09.2017, stating that the supply was disconnected vide PDCO No.59/5277 dated 4.10.16 due to

defaulting amount. After that consumer opted for surcharge waiver scheme and paid first installments on 27.05.17 and thereafter paying installments regularly. As per the terms of SWS, RCO can be effected if

reconnection is sought within 6 months of disconnection hence in this case new connection is required to be

applied by the consumer alongwith undertaking for deposit of bills for 3 years so as to waive of the

surcharge against his previous account. After examining the record in case file, the Forum decides to dispose of the complainant with the

direction to SDO to process for the application of consumer on priority and restore power supply after completing usual formalities in terms of Nigam instructions. Case is closed. Both the parties to bear their

own.

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.




2016.






Case No. DH/CGRF- 1866/2017 Date of Institution: 04.09.2017 Date of Hearing: 19.09.2017 Date of Order: 20.09.2017



In the matter of complaint of Sh. Ram Chander Yadav, H.N. 258/9 Shakti Nagar Rewari



V/s

XEN (OP) DHBVN Rewari SDO (OP) City S/Divn.No.2 Rewari

…….Respondents

Appearance:-

For Complainant:

None

For the Respondent




ORDER

Sh. Ram Chander Yadav, H.N. 258/9 Shakti Nagar Rewari has got an electricity connection

bearing account No. 8726133333 under (OP) City Sub Divn No.2 Rewari hence this Forum has jurisdiction

to hear the complaint. The complainant has filed the present complaint stating that he installed 5 KV solar plant on the roof

of his house by spending about Rs.3.0 lacs under scheme of Govt. of Haryana with a view to avail the rebate in electricity bills but in spite of repeated requests the rebate/adjustment for power generated by his solar plant has not been given in his electricity bills and excess bills for gross energy consumed are being

raised. The complainant requested for correction of electricity bills by allowing adjustment on a/c of power generated and injected in DHBVN system by his solar plant.

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 19.09.2017 at Rewari for hearing of the case.

The proceedings held at Rewari on 19.09.17. The complainant was not present but respondent SDO was present. The SDO submitted reply through Nodal Officer/CGRF, vide his memo No. 5849 dated

19.09.2017, stating that the net meter has already been installed on the premises of consumer and data

regarding net metering sent to RAPDRP office Hisar. In last week of this month the bill of net metering will

be generated and sent to consumer after adjustment. A copy of reply has also been endorsed to complainant by respondent SDO.

As the complainant was not present the Forum considered the reply of respondent SDO and decides to dispose of the complaint in terms of reply and action already taken with the direction to issue the

revised bills to the complainant within a month’s time. Case is closed. Both the parties to bear their own.


Regulations-2016, the implementation of this decision may be intimated to this office within 30 days from the date of its receipt.




2016.






Case No. DH/CGRF- 1867/2017 Date of Institution: 04.09.2017 Date of Hearing: 19.09.2017 Date of Order: 20.09.2017



In the matter of complaint of Sh. Mannu Ram r/o New Adarsh Nagar, Bharawas Road, Rewari

regarding excess charging.


V/s

XEN (OP) DHBVN Rewari SDO (OP) City S/Divn.No.1 Rewari

…….Respondents

Appearance:-

For Complainant:

Present

For the Respondent




ORDER Sh. Mannu Ram r/o New Adarsh Nagar, Bharawas Road, Rewari has got an electricity connection

bearing No. 1414311111 under (OP) City Sub Divn No.1 Rewari hence this Forum has jurisdiction to hear the complaint.

The complainant has filed the present complaint stating that his meter was defective from 8/2016.

He lodged complaint before August-2016 in writing and the meter was actually replaced in Dec.2016. He pursued the matter between August to Dec. 2016 for replacement of meter. In Dec.2016, the CA of S/Divn.

told him that no charges for replacement of meter is to be levied. However in the bill of Jan.2017 an amount of Rs. 24681.00 has been debited under VDS scheme wrongly. He raised the matter with SDO in the m/o

Feb.2017 and SDO assured him to charge as per average consumption. The SDO referred him to Comml

Asstt with an application. The CA demanded bribe for correction of bill. Thereafter from Jan. to May, 2016,

three bills have been raised on average basis which were paid by him. In August-2016 the SDO was transferred & CA has illegally raised a bill of Rs.30084.00 and now threatening for disconnection of supply

for non-payment of the bill. The complainant requested this Forum to get his grievance redressed. 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 19.09.2017 at Rewari for hearing of the case. The proceedings held at Rewari on 19.09.17. The complainant and respondent SDO were present.

The SDO submitted reply through Nodal Officer/CGRF, vide his memo No. 4215 dated 19.09.2017, stating

that consumer applied for change of meter vide complaint No.9808 dated 15.12.16 under VDS scheme. Application was marked to Sh. Jai Singh JE for necessary action and meter was changed vide MCO

NO.1414311800 dated 16.12.16 with the remarks that seals of meter were rusty and broken, tampered. As per report a sum of Rs.24681.00 was charged on a/c of tampered seals under VDS i.e. only one time

penalty as per provision of the scheme vide SC&AR No.99/82. Consumer allegations against CA are baseless. He personally contacted his predecessor Sh. Anil Gupta, SDO who denied the incidence as

referred by the complainant in his complaint. The amount charged is as per Nigam instructions.

Complainant argued that he was misguided and was made to sign the application under VDS whereas he

had already requested for replacement of meter before the VDS. After perusal of the records of case file and hearing the parties, the Forum finds that the consumer

has applied for change of meter under VDS and charged as per provisions of VDS the meter being found tampered. The complainant has also not denied about his signature on the application. Therefore, the

Forum finds no merit in complaint and decides not to interfere in the matter at this stage. Case is closed.

Both the parties to bear their own. If the petitioner is not satisfied with the decision of CGRF, he has the right to file an appeal before


for Redressal of Grievances of consumers, Electricity Ombudsman and Consumer Advocacy) Regulations-2016.




Present:-




In the matter of complaint of Sh. Sant Lal s/o Sh. Manohar Lal Proprietor of Balaji Flour Mill

Barwala Road, Hansi (Hisar) regarding refund of security.


V/s

1. XEN/Op. Division , DHBVN, Hansi.

2. SDO (OP), City S/Divn. DHBVN, Hansi.


Appearance:-



2. SDO (OP), City, Hansi.



ORDER

Sh. Sant Lal s/o Sh. Manohar Lal Prop. of Balaji Flour Mill Barwala Road, Hansi (Hisar)

has got an electricity connection bearing account No. F-1401 under SDO (OP) City S/Divn.

Hansi hence this Forum has jurisdiction to hear the complaint.

The complainant has filed present complaint through Sh. Vikas Bhardwarj Advocate

Chamber No. 229 Distt. court Hisar stating that:-

1. The complainant had an account No.F-1401 which was permanently disconnection on 6.12.2000 on the request of complainant.

2. The complainant deposited security amounting to Rs.108800.00 on 25.7.1997 vide Receipt No.121.

3. At the time of permanent disconnection, the complainant has cleared all the dues and nothing was outstanding against him.

4. The complainant repeatedly requested the respondents for refund of security Rs.108800.00 alongwith interest from the date of deposit as per Nigam rules and Sub Section 4 of Sec.47 of Elecy Act-2003.

5. Due to non refund of security alongwith interest the complainant has suffered harassment, mental agony, physical pain and financial loss.

6. A legal notice was served on respondent on 13.6.2017 but no action has been taken.

The complainant prayed for direction to the respondent to refund the security of

Rs.108800.00 alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of deposit till actual payment and

further Rs.50,000.00 as compensation and litigation expenses.



of the case.

The proceedings held at Hisar on 07.09.2017. The complainant was not present nor any

representative appeared on his behalf. The respondent SDO was present and requested for

another date in the case as he could not prepare the reply being the case admitted on

04.09.2017 and forwarded to the concerned parties on 05.09.2017. Request allowed.

Proceedings held at Hisar on 06.10.17. The complainant was not present nor any

representative appeared on his behalf. Representative of respondent was present and filed

written statement vide No.2340 dated 4.10.17 stating that the security refund case has already

been processed and forwarded to XEN(OP) Hansi but the original BA 16 or the Affidavit as

required from consumer has not been furnished for which a notice to consumer has been

served. The representative informed that security shall be refunded as & when complainant

completes the formality/submit requisite documents.

After considering the written statement the Forum decides to dispose of the complaint in

terms of reply of respondent with the direction that the refund of security may be allowed within

15 days time after complainant submits the requisite documents to the S/Divn.





Ombudsman and Consumer Advocacy) Regulations-2016. File be consigned to record. Given under our hands on this day of 9th October 2017.


FORUM FOR REDRESSAL OF CONSUMER GRIEVANCES DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM D-BLOCK, Ground Floor, Vidyut Sadan, Vidyut Nagar, Hisar-125 005 Telephone No. 01662-223081 (website: www.dhbvn.com) (e-mail ID: [email protected]) ___________________________________________________________ Case No. DH/CGRF-1869/2017 Date of Institution: 04.09.2017 Date of Hearing: 07.09.2017 & 06.10.17 Date of Order : 06.10.2017 Before the Forum for Redressal of Consumer Grievances, DHBVN

.

Present:-




In the matter of complaint of Sh. Hari Om s/o Sh. Netarpal VPO Sisai Kali Rawan Hansi (Hisar)

regarding release of tubewell connection.


V/s

1. XEN/Op. Division, DHBVN, Hansi.

2. JE Incharge (OP), S/Office DHBVN, Sisai.


Appearance:-

For Complainant: 1.Representative


2. JE Incharge S/Office Sisai.



ORDER Sh. Hari Om s/o Sh. Netarpal VPO Sisai Kali Rawan Hansi (Hisar) has applied for new

tubewell connection under S/Office DHBVN, Sisai hence this Forum has jurisdiction to hear the

complaint.

The complainant has filed present complaint that he applied a 5 BHP tubewell

connection vide application No.19230 dated 10.10.13. He also got a demand notice from

DHBVN office on 9.12.16 and accordingly deposited Rs.70768.00 on 15.12.16 vide Receipt No.

290/004167. Thereafter material has also been made available at site. However due to

objection raised by one Sh. Ram Chander from whose T/F connection was to be connected, his

tubewell connection could not be installed. The concerned office of DHBVN is now in

connivance with the other party are suggesting for applying separate HT connection for which

he is unable to pay Rs.1.75 lacs i.e. cost of separate HT connection. Complainant requested for

release of tubewell connection as per original demand notice and amount already deposited on

15.12.16 besides suitable action against Nigam officials in the matter.



of the case. The proceedings held at Hisar on 07.09.2017. The complainant and respondent JE

were present. The complainant argued his case in line with written submissions and further

stated that no action whatsoever, is being taken regarding his tubewell application nor factual

position is being informed to him despite his repeated visits to the Nigam office. The respondent

JE was present and informed the Forum that the complaint was listed on 4.9.17 and sent to

concerned parties on 5.9.17 as such he could not prepare written reply after consulting relevant

record. He however informed the forum that revised estimate in the case of complainant has

already been prepared for which the demand notice is ready and to be issued to the

complainant. The respondent JE requested for adjournment of case to next date.

After hearing the parties, the Forum decides to adjourn the case to next date with the

direction to the respondent to issue the demand notice alongwith copies of estimate and other

relevant papers necessitating revision of estimate/demand notice to the complainant within two

days enabling the complainant to file replication/rejoinder and argue the case on next date

accordingly.

The respondent JE is also to file detailed written statement before the Forum on or

before next date.

Proceeding held at Hisar on 06.10.2017. Complainant and representative of respondent

S/D were present. Written statement has been filed on behalf of respondent vide No. 2341

dated 3.10.17 stating therein that complainant applied for tubewell connection under general

scheme on 10.10.13. Estimate was framed and an amount of Rs.67500.00 got deposited from

the consumer. Work was allotted for execution. However, later-on it was observed that

connection to the complainant cannot be released from the T/F as per estimate being the

transformer provided by all the consumers under self execution scheme and as objected by

another consumers. Accordingly revised estimate of Rs.153614.00 has been prepared and now

the applicant has deposited balance of Rs.86114.00 on 22.9.17 and connection shall be

released within one month of the date of issue of W.O. It is further informed that a draft charge

sheet of delinquent official in the matter of preparing wrong estimate has been framed and

submitted to higher authorities for approval. Complainant was present and acknowledged that

he has deposited the enhanced amount of estimate but insisted for action against the Nigam

officials for framing wrong estimate in the first instance leading to financial loss and delay in

release of connection.

After examining of record in the case file and hearing the parties, the Forum decides to

dispose of the complaint in terms of reply of respondent with the direction to release the

tubewell connection within one month’s time and also expedite administrative action against the

official found responsible in this case. As required under Haryana State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Guidelines for






Consumer Advocacy) Regulations-2016. File be consigned to record. Given under our hands on this day of 6th Octo 2017.



DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM D-BLOCK, Ground Floor, Vidyut Sadan, Vidyut Nagar, Hisar-125 005 Telephone No. 01662-223081 (website: www.dhbvn.com) (e-mail ID: [email protected]) ___________________________________________________________ Case No. DH/CGRF-1870/2017 Date of Institution: 04/092017 Date of Hearing: 12.09.2017

Date of Order: 20/09/2017


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 CMI Ltd. Plot No. 71 & 82, Sector-6, Faridabad

regarding wrong charging of MDI penalty.


V/s

1. Xen/Op. Old, DHBVN, Ballabgarh 2.SDO/Op. I/A sub Divn., DHBVN, Ballabgarh.


Appearance:-


2. Respondent SDO



ORDER

M/s CMI Ltd. Plot No. 71 & 82, Sector-6, Faridabad has got an electricity connection

bearing A/C No. 8917101000 under (OP) Industrial Area Sub-Division, DHBVN, Ballabgarh, hence this Forum has jurisdiction to hear the complaint.

The complainant has filed the present complaint stating therein that they are having an industrial connection with sanctioned load of 1402 Kw and CD of 500 KVA. They are a regular

paying customer of Electricity Deptt. since 1975. During the month of Feb,.2016 their MDI exceeded 547 KVA and respondent Nigam has imposed penalty of Rs.412788.00 on this a/c which was duly

paid by them. The Nigam has not reset the MDI which was required to be reset automatically as per provisions/instructions despite their requests to the concerned SDO till April-2016. The respondent

Nigam has again imposed penalty on a/c of exceeding MDI for Rs.381158.00 (March-2016) and

Rs.337761.00 (April 2016) based on previous MDI which was deposited by them under protest for

the sake of continuity of supply. Imposition of penalty was wrong and against rules. They applied for reduction of load from 1402 KW to 1160 KW and with extended CD from 500 KVA to 750 KVA on

26.2.2016 and the same was released by respondent Nigam on 12.4.2016 and at the time of

releasing load the Nigam came to our unit and then reset MDI. Their CD has not exceeded before 02/2016 and June/2016 to-date. The complainant requested for withdrawal of penalty levied during

3/2016 and 4/2016 amounting to Rs.725912/- The complaint was forwarded to the Nodal Officer for filing the written reply of the Nigam and


the case.

The proceedings of the case held at Faridabad on 12.09.2017. The complainant and respondent SDO were present. The complainant argued the case in line with written submission

and insisted for withdrawal of penalty wrongly levied in first instance due to non reset of MDI at the level of respondent Nigam. The SDO submitted reply through Nodal Officer/CGRF vide his memo

No. 2217 dated 11.09.2017, stating therein that reading of MDI was recorded as 547.50 KVA on 01.02.2016 & penalty on a/c of exceeding of MDI was charged accordingly during the m/o 2/2016.

After that on 26.02.2016 consumer applied for reduction of load from 1402 KW to 1160 KW and extension of CD from 500 KVA to 750 KVA which shows that consumer was using the extended load

since 1/2016 on which CD recorded as 547.5 and penalty being charged continuously in the next bills up to release of extended CD as such penalty is rightly levied by Nigam.

The respondent SDO was asked to produce load survey data of the consumer for the month

of March and April, 2016. The load survey data was placed on record and a scrutiny of data

revealed that highest demand of consumer during the month of March and April, 2016 was recorded

as 420 KVA on 07.04.2016 in the time slot 22.00 to 22.30 Hrs. Based on analysis of load survey data, no penalty on account of exceeding MDI is made out in the month of March & April 2016. The

MDI was required to be reset immediately by respondent SDO and charging of penalty on a/c of MDI reading for Feb.2016 in the month of March and April, 2016 is not justified. The Forum therefore

decides to withdraw the penalty imposed on the consumer for the m/o March & April-2016. The

Complaint is allowed to the extent. No orders with regards to interest and costs. Both the parties to















In the matter of complaint of Sh. Parveen Bansal Properioter of Ganesh Plastics, Plot No.48

Sector-21 Industrail Area, Bhiwani regarding waiver of surcharge on account of late delivery of bill.


V/s



Present

For the Respondent

1 Nodal Officer CGRF,DHBVN Hisar.. 2 Respondent SDO



ORDER

Sh. Parveen Bansal Properioter of Ganesh Plastics, Plot No.48 Sector-21 Industrail Area,

Bhiwani has got an electricity connection having a/c No. 3443380000 under SDO/Op. S/U Sub-Division

No. I, DHBVN, Bhiwani, hence this Forum has jurisdiction to hear the complaint.

The complainants have filed present complaint stating that they got their bill for the month of

July for Rs. 373413.00 with due date of 24.07.2017 only on 24.07.17 at 4.00 PM in the evening. They

deposited the amount on next date i.e. 25.7.17 without surcharge after discussing the matter with

concerned officer of Nigam. However in the next bill for the month of August-2017 an amount of

surcharge Rs. 5505.00 added in the account and surcharge levied is not withdrawn in spite of repeated

request and visit to the concerned offices. The complainant requested for withdrawal of surcharge

amounting to Rs. 5505.00.



case.


SDO were present. The complainants argued the case in line with written submission and insisted for

withdrawal of surcharge of Rs.5505/- on the grounds that the bill for July, 2017 was delivered late by

respondent Nigam and there is no fault on the part of consumer. The complainant while sticking to their

claim of late delivery of bill insisted for proof from the respondent SDO regarding delivery of bill in time.

Written reply was filed by respondent SDO vide No.8266 stating that the complainants have

represented regarding late delivery of bill for July, 2017 and were told that the matter will be

investigated. But as the other bills of Ind. Area adjoining to his premises did not make any such

complainant hence there are little chances of error on the part of bill distributor. As per their request

that the cheque has already been issued and he will have to go to the firm for reissue the full amount

cheque, the bill has been accepted as part payment in the interest of Nigam and giving due respect to

an industrial consumer. Matter was investigated and complaint was not found genuine and the same

was informed to consumer also. In the next month i.e. August 2017 consumer again represented on

28.8.17 and he was briefed about investigation made by office and reply in writing given by Sh. Shiv

Charan L/Man, official deputed for reading and bill distribution. The consumer also taken up the matter

with XEN (City) Bhiwani and as per direction of XEN, he (SDO) visited the premises of consumer and

other adjoining industries also. It was found that in the complainant’s premises the copy of bill is not

received directly by owner rather gate keeper collects the copy of bill and hand over the same to

owner. For the adjoining industries it was gathered that during July 2017 bills were distributed 4-5 days

prior to due date hence there is no substance in complainant and consumer wanted undue benefit

which was denied. The SDO also pointed out that there is no system of getting acknowledgement for

the bills from consumers in token of its receipt, bills of other Industrial consumers in the locality were

delivered in time and it is not possible that bill of a particular factory/premises is not delivered. The

SDO also placed on records a copy of letter written by Prop. of Ankur Plastics Plot No.49/21 (Account

No.9070770000) and another letter from Director of Stable Polyfab Pvt Ltd. situated at plot No.117-21

that they got their electricity bills for the m/o July, 2017 3-4 days before the due date of bill.

On enquiry as to whether CCTV cameras are installed at the gate of factory to ascertain the

fact of delivery of bill, the complainant informed that CCTV cameras have been installed after July-

2017 and bills of CCTV in support of their claim also placed on record. The bills of the CCTV systems

carry date of 9/08/2017.

After going through the records and hearing both the parties the Forum finds that the

complainants could not conclusively prove that the bills were indeed received late at their premises.

The Forum also noted that there is no system in vogue at present to take acknowledgement of

consumer in token of receipt of bills. The Forum also taken note of the fact that no other consumer

/adjoining industry preferred such complaint in the month of July 2017 and also the letters written by

Directors of Stable Polyfab Pvt Ltd. and M/S New Ankur Plastic regarding receipt of bill for the month of

Juy-2017, 4-5 days before due date as produced by the SDO in support of defence. The Forum

therefore decides to dispose of the complaint in terms of reply filed by respondent SDO. No cost on

either side. The case is closed.





Regulations-2016.









In the matter of complaint of Sh. Parveen Bansal & Manoj Kumar Proprietors of Amar Plastics

Plot No.48-A Sector-21 Industrial Area Bhiwani regarding waiver of surcharge for late delivery of

bills.


V/s



Present

For the Respondent




ORDER

Sh. Parveen Bansal & Manoj Kumar Proprietors of Amar Plastics, Plot No.48-A Sector-21

Industrial Area Bhiwani has got an electricity connection having a/c NO.0556280000 under SDO/Op.

S/U Sub-Division No. I, DHBVN, Bhiwani, hence this Forum has jurisdiction to hear the complaint.

The complainants have filed present complaint stating that they got their bill for the month of

July, 2017 for Rs.2132103.00 with due date of 24.07.2017 only on 24.07.17 at 4.00 PM in the evening.

They deposited the amount on next date i.e. 25.7.17 without surcharge after discussing the matter

with concerned officer of Nigam. However in the next bill for the month of August-2017 an amount of

surcharge Rs.31614.00 added in the account and surcharge levied is not being withdrawn in spite of

repeated request and visit to the concerned offices. Complainant requested for withdrawal of surcharge

amounting to Rs.31614/-



case.


SDO were present. The complainants argued the case in line with written submission and insisted for

withdrawal of surcharge of Rs.31614.00 on the grounds that the bill for July, 2017 was delivered late by

respondent Nigam and there is no fault on the part of consumer. The complainant while sticking to their

claim of late delivery of bill insisted for proof from the respondent SDO regarding delivery of bill in time.

Written reply was filed by respondent SDO vide No.8266 stating that the complainants have

represented regarding late delivery of bill for July, 2017 and were told that the matter will be

investigated. But as the other bills of Ind. Area adjoining to his premises did not make any such

complainant hence there are little chances of error on the part of bill distributor. As per their request

that the cheque has already been issued and he will have to go to the firm for reissue the full amount

cheque, the bill has been accepted as part payment in the interest of Nigam and giving due respect to

an industrial consumer. Matter was investigated and complaint was not found genuine and the same

was informed to consumer also. In the next month i.e. August 2017 consumer again represented on

28.8.17 and he was briefed about investigation made by office and reply in writing given by Sh. Shiv

Charan L/Man, official deputed for reading and bill distribution. The consumer also taken up the matter

with XEN (City) Bhiwani and as per direction of XEN, he (SDO) visited the premises of consumer and

other adjoining industries also. It was found that in the complainant’s premises the copy of bill is not

received directly by owner rather gate keeper collects the copy of bill and hand over the same to

owner. For the adjoining industries it was gathered that during July 2017 bills were distributed 4-5 days

prior to due date hence there is no substance in complainant and consumer wanted undue benefit

which was denied. The SDO also pointed out that there is no system of getting acknowledgement for

the bills from consumers in token of its receipt, bills of other Industrial consumers in the locality were

delivered in time and it is not possible that bill of a particular factory/premises is not delivered. The

SDO also placed on records a copy of letter written by Prop. of Ankur Plastics Plot No.49/21 (Account

No.9070770000) and another letter from Director of Stable Polyfab Pvt Ltd. situated at plot No.117-21

that they got their electricity bills for the m/o July, 2017 3-4 days before the due date of bill.

On enquiry as to whether CCTV cameras are installed at the gate of factory to ascertain the

fact of delivery of bill, the complainant informed that CCTV cameras have been installed after July-

2017 and bills of CCTV in support of their claim also placed on record. The bills of the CCTV systems

carry date of 9/08/2017.

After going through the records and hearing both the parties the Forum finds that the

complainants could not conclusively prove that the bills were indeed received late at their premises.

The Forum also noted that there is no system in vogue at present to take acknowledgement of

consumer in token of receipt of bills. The Forum also taken note of the fact that no other consumer

/adjoining industry preferred such complaint in the month of July 2017 and also the letters written by

Directors of Stable Polyfab Pvt Ltd. and M/S New Ankur Plastic regarding receipt of bill for the month of

Juy-2017, 4-5 days before due date as produced by the SDO in support of defence. The Forum

therefore decides to dispose of the complaint in terms of reply filed by respondent SDO. No cost on

either side. The case is closed.





Regulations-2016.









In the matter of complaint of Sh. Dariya Singh s/o Sh. Surja Ram VPO Nalwa (Hisar) regarding

refund of excess charges levied in the estimate of TWC.


V/s

XEN (OP) S/U Divn. DHBVN Bhiwani SDO (OP) Sub Divn. No.2, DHBVN Tosham


Present

For the Respondent




ORDER

Sh. Dariya Singh s/o Sh. Surja Ram VPO Nalwa (Hisar) has applied for a tubewell connection

under SDO/Op. Sub-Division No. 2, DHBVN, Tosham, hence this Forum has jurisdiction to hear the

complaint.

The complainant has filed present complaint stating that he applied for a tubewell connection to

SDO (OP) S/D No. 2, Tosham. The Nigam prepared estimate for release of TWC with13 No. PCC

poles. Estimated amount of Rs.183042.00 was deposited on 27.02.2016 vide receipt No. 688. The

Tatkal fees of Rs.101875.00 also deposited on 9.9.17 vide Receipt No.246. The complainant has

stated that his work has been completed with erection of 10 poles only and requested for refund of cost

of 3 No. poles for which he was charged in excess as per estimate in the first instance.



case.


SDO were present. The complainant argued in line with written submission and insisted for refund of

excess charges levied from him on a/c of cost of 3 No. poles and other material as well. Respondent

SDO filed written reply vide memo No.2580 dated 13.09.2017 stating that 13 No. 9 Mtr PCC poles

were provided in the estimate keeping view the distance of LT line. At the time of execution of work,

ruby crops were standing in the field so the owner of adjacent fields did not allow erection of poles in

the fields. To avoid complainant’s unnecessary harassment and damage of crops, poles were erected

by the contractor on the boundary of fields as per available space and some poles were erection at a

distance of 70-80 meters hence work was completed by erecting 10 poles only. Remaining 3 poles are

available at complainant’s site. Now consumer is refusing for erection of balance 3 poles and asking for

refund of money which cannot be refunded as per Nigam instructions. Respondent SDO also placed

on record sketch of line actually erected at site showing position of the poles therein.

Perusal of sketch reveals that distance between two poles in the line is 75 mtrs. & 81 mtrs

respectively which is abnormal. Respondent SDO during oral submission agreed that one existing pole

can be repositioned and one additional pole can be erected to balance the span length of the line.

After going through the records in the case file and hearing the parties the Forum decides to

dispose of the compliant with the direction to respondent SDO to prepare revised estimate by providing

reposition and additional pole in the line to balance the span length and allow refund to the consumer

for the spare poles within a month’s time. The case is closed. Both the parties to bear their own cost.









Regulations-2016.






Present:-




In the matter of complaint of Dr Neeraj Kumar Rai, B-62C Ashoka Enclave,

Second Floor Sector-37 Faridabad regarding wrong billing.


V/s

1. Xen/Op. Old DHBVN, Faridabad. 2.SDO/Op. Matura Road S/Divn. DHBVN, Faridabad.


Appearance:-

For Complainant: 1. None. For the Respondent: 1. Nodal Officer, CGRF, DHBVN, Hisar

2. Respondent SDO



.

ORDER

Dr Neeraj Kumar Rai, B-62C Ashoka Enclave, Second Floor Sector-37 Faridabad has

got an electricity connection bearing A/C No. 4489450000 under SDO/Op. Matura Road S/D DHBVN Faridabad hence this Forum has jurisdiction to hear the complaint. The complainant has filed the present complaint stating therein that his meter reading recorded incorrectly and wrong bill issued. The complainant requested for getting his corrected as

per actual consumption. The complaint was forwarded to the Nodal Officer for filing the written reply of the Nigam and


The proceedings held at Faridabad on 12.09.2017. The complainant was not present but the

respondent SDO was present. The SDO informed that the grievance of consumer has already been

redressed. The complainant has also sent an email to the address of CGRF confirming that appropriate action on his complaint has already been taken.

As the grievance of complainant has already been redressed, the Forum decides to close the

cost. No cost on either side.

File be consigned to record. Given under our hands on this day of 13th September- 2017.


FORUM FOR REDRESSAL OF CONSUMER GRIEVANCES DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM D-BLOCK, Ground Floor, Vidyut Sadan, Vidyut Nagar, Hisar-125 005 Telephone No. 01662-223081 (website: www.dhbvn.com) (e-mail ID: [email protected]) ___________________________________________________________ Case No. DH/CGRF-1877/2017 Date of Institution: 11.09.2017 Date of Hearing: 12.09.2017& 10/10/2017 Date of order: 11.10.2017


Present:-




In the matter of complaint of Sh. Manaswani Dutt, F-707 Block-1 Indraprastha

Apartment, Sector 30-33, Faridabad regarding non credit of amount paid through online

mode.


V/s

1. Xen/Op. DHBVN, Old Faridabad. 2.SDO/Op. S/Divn. West DHBVN, Faridabad.


Appearance:-




ORDER

Sh. Manaswani Dutt, F-707 Block-1 Indraprastha Apartment Sector 30-33, Faridabad has got an electricity connection bearing A/C No. 4228140000 under SDO/Op. S/D West DHBVN Old Faridabad hence this Forum has jurisdiction to hear the complaint. The complainant has filed the present complaint (through Sh. Vikrant Dutt) stating therein

that he paid bill of Rs.3477.00 on 19.5.2017 through online mode but the payment has not been

credited and shown as arrears with surcharge in the subsequent bills. Complainant requested for

allowing credit of the amount paid online and correction of the bills accordingly.



the case.

The proceedings held at Faridabad on 12.09.2017. The complainant was not present.

Representative of SDO was present. The written statement on behalf of SDO was filed vide No.1350

dated 11.09.17 stating that the amount claimed by complainant has not been paid/credited.

Consumer made payment of Rs.1910.00 on 4.4.17 and after that payment of Rs.5792.00 received

on 19.08.2017 hence no payment received from consumer in the month of May-2017.

After examining the record in case file, it is observed that consumer has filed a bill receipt

duly generated by M/S Pragyaware Informatics for Rs.3477.00 dated 19.05.17 against his energy

account No.4228140000. The Forum therefore directs the respondent SDO to check up the matter

again with the DHBVN payment aggregator and put up status report on next date. Case is adjourned

to next date i.e. 10.10.2017.

Proceedings held at Faridabad on 10.10.2017. The complainant and respondent SDO were

not present. However, written statement from SDO was filed after close of hearing. Written

statement was same as was filed on previous date and no new fact or status of case as per direction

of this Forum were brought out. However, Nodal Officer CGRF has filed an e-mail from M/S

Pragyaware, (online payment aggregator of Nigam) confirming therein that payment of Rs.3477.00 deposited by consumer through online mode/credit card was successful with receipt No. 23548863

and same was posted from aggregator side to HCL server on 19.5.17 and again on 15.6.17 when

the mismatch between online payment and posting was noticed. The e-mail has been taken on

records.

Considering above facts on record the Forum finds that complainant has made payment in

the first instance and requisite credit for the same is to be allowed. The forum therefore decides that

amount of Rs.3477.00 may be posted in consumer account and surcharge levied on account of non

posting may be withdrawn with due process and reflected in the next bill to be issued to the

consumer. The Forum further decides that in-action on the part of S/Divn. staff in resolving the

grievance of the consumer despite clear-cut direction of this forum led to harassment to the consumer hence deficiency in service. Compensation of Rs.1000.00 in terms of HERC Standards of

Performance (SoP) is therefore allowed to the complainant. Amount of compensation is to be

recovered from officer/official responsible for the delay and provided to the consumer. Case is

closed. Both the parties to bear own cost.









Present:-




In the matter of complaint of Sh. Naresh Jindal r/o No.H.N.1571, Sector-28

Faridabad regarding damage of electrical appliances on account of voltage fluctuations.


V/s

1. Xen/Op. Old DHBVN, Faridabad. 2.SDO/Op. S/Divn. West DHBVN, Old Faridabad.


Appearance:-



.



ORDER

Sh. Naresh Jindal r/o No.H.N.1571, Sector-28 Faridabad has got an electricity connection

bearing A/C No. 0541630000 under SDO/Op. West S/D DHBVN Old Faridabad hence this Forum

has jurisdiction to hear the complaint. The complainant has filed the present complaint (through Sh.D.R.Aggarwal) stating therein

that his electrical appliances have been damaged due to high voltage. Complainant requested for Redressal of his grievance.


the case. The proceedings held at Faridabad on 12.09.2017. The complainant was not present but the representative of SDO was present. The SDO filed reply vide memo No.1352 dated 11.09.2017

stating that premises of consumer has been checked by the JE incharge and voltage found under permissible limits. Confirmation also taken from the consumer in this regard. The T/F has been

maintained to ensure safe and reliable power supply. Consumer has been advised to install MCB/ELCB of adequate size to safeguard electrical appliances.

After examining the records of case file the Forum decides to dispose of the complaint in

terms of reply filed by SDO. Case is closed. No cost on either side.










Case No. DH/CGRF- 1879/2017 Date of Institution: 11/09/2017 Date of Hearing: 10/10/2017 Date of Order 11.10.2017


Present:


In the complaint of Sh. Ram Singh, H. No 88, D-Block Basantpur Colony, Estate-

II Gali No.2 Faridabad regarding wrong billing


V/s

1 XEN (OP) Divn. DHBVN, Gr. Faridabad 2 SDO (OP) Sub Divn, DHBVN Tilpat

…….Respondents

Appearance:-


For the Respondent 1 Nodal Officer CGRF Hisar. 2 Respondent SDO



ORDER

Sh. Ram Singh, H. No 88, D-Block Basantpur Colony, Estate-II Gali No.2 Faridabad, has got an electricity connection bearing account No. 7475760000 under (OP) Sub-Division,

DHBVN, Tilpat, hence this Forum has jurisdiction to hear the complaint.

The complainant has filed the present complaint stating therein that wrong bill has been

issued to him for the month of 6/2017. Old reading showing in the bill do not tally with previous bill

and slab calculation is also incorrect. Complainant requested for redressal of grievance.



the case.


present nor any representative appeared on his behalf. Respondent SDO was present. Respondent

SDO filed written statement vide No. 493 dated 10.10.17 stating that bill of consumer has already

been corrected vide BR-3 on 9.10.17 for Rs.5366.00 and a copy of revised bill also placed on

record.

As the bill of consumer has already been corrected, the Forum decides to dispose of

complaint in terms of reply of respondent. Case is closed. Both the parties to bear own cost.










Case No. DH/CGRF- 1887 /2017 Date of Institution: 11/09/2017 Date of Hearing: 10/10/2017 Date of Order 11.10.2017


Present:


In the complaint of Smt. Malti Devi w/o Shashi Bhushan, Harkesh Colony near

Murari Lal Public School, Faridabad regarding wrong billing


V/s


…….Respondents

Appearance:-





ORDER

Smt. Malti Devi w/o Shashi Bhushan, Harkesh Colony near Murari Lal Public School,

Faridabad, has got an electricity connection bearing account No. 6141002330 under (OP) Sub-

Division, DHBVN, Tilpat, hence this Forum has jurisdiction to hear the complaint.

The complainant has filed the present complaint stating therein that actual meter reading is

not taken and bills are raised on fictitious reading causing hardship. Complainant requested for

redressal of grievance.



the case.



SDO filed written statement vide No. 494 dated 10.10.17 stating that consumer billing group initiated

for billing and correction in the bill will be reflected in ensuing bill of consumer.

After considering the reply and perusal of past reading, the Forum noted that actual readings

are not taken by meter reading agency regularly causing accumulation of reading and inflated bill to

the consumer. The forum therefore decides that revised bill of the consumer be prepared as per

actual reading in the meter as on date by giving applicable slab benefits to consumer for the last one year. Future bill be raised as per actual consumption regularly. Case is closed. Both the parties to

bear own cost.














Case No. DH/CGRF- 1889/2017 Date of Institution: 11.09.2017 Date of Hearing 06.10.2017 Date of Order : 09.10.2017



In the matter of complaint of Ms. Suman Kumari d/o Sh. Dajip Singh, 48 Navdeep

Colony Rajgarh Road, Hisar. regarding levy of development charges


V/s

XEN (OP) Divn.No.1 DHBVN Hisar SDO Civil Line S/D DHBVN Hisar

…….Respondents


Representative

For the Respondent 1 Nodal Officer CGRF Hisar 2 Representative of respondent SDO



ORDER Ms. Suman Kumari d/o Sh. Dajip Singh, 48 Navdeep Colony Rajgarh Road, Hisar has

got an electricity connection bearing account No. 9519030000 under (OP) C/Line Sub Divn. Hisar hence this Forum has jurisdiction to hear the complaint.

The complainant has filed present complaint (through Sh. Dalip Singh) stating therein that

development charges of Rs.12907.00 have been wrongly charged from her at the time of release of

domestic connection in the year 2011 though house and its map is duly approved by Municipal Corp. Hisar.. The complainant requested for Redressal of her grievance.


both the parties were asked to appear before the Forum on 06.10.2017 at Hisar for hearing of the case.

The proceedings held at Hisar on 06.10.2017. The representatives of complainant and respondent SDO were present. Complainant argued the case in line with written submission and

insisted that development charges have been wrongly charged by Licensee Nigam. Representative

of S/D has produced copy of relevant Nigam instructions under which development charges from the

residents of colonies developed by private builders/others are to be charged. Respondent argued that charges are levied as per applicable instructions and no extra charges levied to the complainant

in present case. The reasoning of levy of development charges has been explained to the representative of complainant with the examples of sectors/colonies developed by HUDA and other

private developers to which complainant was satisfied. As the complainant was satisfied, the Forum decides to dispose of the complaint in terms of

arguments held during the course of hearing. Case is closed. Both the parties to bear their own cost. File be consigned to record. Given under our hands on this day of 9th October 2017. .




Case No. DH/CGRF-1890/2017 Date of Institution: 11.09.2017 Date of Hearing 06.10.2017 Date of Order : 06.10.2017



In the matter of complaint of Smt. Sushila Rani w/o Satish Kumar, Vinod Nagar Gali

No.2 Hisar. regarding wrong billing


V/s

XEN (OP) Divn. DHBVN Hisar SDO City S/D DHBVN Hisar

…….Respondents


None




ORDER Smt. Sushila Rani w/o Satish Kumar, Vinod Nagar Gali No.2, Hisar has got an electricity

connection bearing account No. 7233720000 under (OP) City Sub Divn. Hisar hence this Forum has jurisdiction to hear the complaint.

The complainant has filed present complaint stating therein that wrong bills by showing

fictitious reading being issued to her though the meter is working OK.. The complainant requested

for Redressal of her 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 06.10.2017 at Hisar for hearing of the

case. The proceedings held at Hisar on 06.10.2017. The complainant was not present nor any

representative appeared on her behalf. Representative of respondent SDO was present and informed the Forum that revised bill on actual consumption basis has been prepared and under

issue to consumer.

After considering the submission of respondent, the Forum decides to dispose of the

complaint with the direction to respondent to provide revised corrected bill to complainant within a week’s time. Case is closed. Both the parties to bear their own cost.







File be consigned to record. Given under our hands on this day of 6th October 2017. .







In the matter of complaint of Sh. Pawan Kumar, H.N. 1139 Sector 16-17 Hisar. regarding

wrong billing


V/s

XEN (OP) Divn. DHBVN Hansi JE Incharge Sub Office DHBVN Sisai

…….Respondents


Present

For the Respondent 1 Nodal Officer CGRF Hisar 2 Representative of respondent JE



ORDER Sh. Pawan Kumar, H.N. 1139 Sector 16-17 Hisar has an electricity connection baring

account No. H35-GG21-0019 under (OP) Sub Office Sisai hence this Forum has jurisdiction to hear the complaint.

The complainant has filed present complaint stating therein that wrong bill is being issued to

him for the last one and half years and same is not being corrected despite repeated requests. The

complainant requested for Redressal of her 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 06.10.2017 at Hisar for hearing of the

case. The proceedings held at Hisar on 06.10.2017. The complainant and representative of

respondent JE were present. The complainant argued his case in line with written submission and insisted that an extra amount of Rs.20000.00 pertaining to 2015 has wrongly been debited in his

account which needs to be withdrawn besides issuing correct bills in future at the end of Sub Office.

Written statement on behalf of respondent filed vide No. 677 dated 3.10.17 stating that the

consumer premises was checked on 1.4.15 and penalty of Rs.206255.00 imposed which was deposited on 28.4.15. The bills issued for the period 3/15 to 10/15 on provisional basis have since

been adjusted by allowing refund of Rs.12497.00 to the complainant. Complainant deposited Rs.11000.00 on 31.3.15 as against outstanding amount of Rs.21849.00 and thereafter no payment

has been made leading to accumulation of the bill. A copy of MCO, copy of sundry & M&P checking report also placed on record.

Perusal of the sundry item No. 147/65 dated 10.3.16 revealed that consumer has been charged on average basis for the period 2/15 to 8/15 by taking base consumption for 2/14 to 10/14

which is incorrect as meter of consumer was removed in 10/14 and new meter installed on 26.6.15

hence no average billing was required during period 2/15 to 6/15 being no meter at site and bills on actual basis were to be issued during 26/6/15 onwards as new meter stands installed. The Forum

therefore decides that the charging made in consumer account for the period 2/15 to 6/15 may be withdrawn alongwith surcharge and billing for the period 8/15 may be adjusted as per actual

consumption. Case is closed. Both the parties to bear their own cost. As required under Haryana State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Guidelines for






Consumer Advocacy) Regulations-2016. File be consigned to record. Given under our hands on this day of 6th October 2017. .







In the matter of complaint Sh. V.K. Singla, H.No-06 Sector 13-Part-II Hisar. regarding

non generation/receipt of bill


V/s

XEN (OP) Divn.No.1 DHBVN Hisar SDO Civil Line S/D DHBVN Hisar

…….Respondents


Present




ORDER Sh. V.K. Singla, H.No. 06, Sector 13-Part-II, Hisar has got an electricity connection bearing

account No. 3065620000 under (OP) C/Line Sub Divn. Hisar hence this Forum has jurisdiction to hear the complaint.

The complainant has filed present complaint stating therein that he is not getting his electricity Bill

regularly as per meter reading. He has not received any bill for his NDS connection for the last 2-3

months and last bill was issued upto period 23.5.17. The complainant requested for Redressal of his

grievance.


the parties were asked to appear before the Forum on 06.10.2017 at Hisar for hearing of the case.

The proceedings held at Hisar on 06.10.2017. The complainant and representative of respondent SDO were present. Complainant argued the case in line with written submission and insisted for timely

generation and supply of bill in r/o of his NDS connection. The Representative of S/D informed the Forum

that bill of consumer is not being generated through RAPDRP system due to problem in binder

management system. Matter has been taken up with RAPDRP cell of HO and new system to address

such like issues has been development and likely to be handed to S/divn. for its implementation. It was

further informed that there are about 14 No. consumers in their S/D who are facing such problem of non

generation of bills due to system constraint. After hearing the parties, the Forum observed that consumer also approached this Forum earlier

with the same grievance in the month of May/June 2017 and complaint was disposed of vide Order dated

12.6.17 in case No.1735/2017 with the direction to respondent SDO to address the grievance by

preparing manual bills as per actual reading till the time systemic issues are addressed at the end of

Licensee with a view to avoid inconvenience to the consumer. The Forum took a serious note of non

compliance of its earlier directions.

After hearing the parties, the Forum decides to dispose of the complaint with the direction that the

latest bill of consumer may be prepared and issued to consumer within two days after getting the readings. Subsequent bills may be generated and provided to the consumer regularly manually in case

system constraints persist. The Forum further decides to allow a compensation of Rs.1000.00 to

complainant in terms of HERC standards of performance. The amount of compensation to be provided to

the consumer needs to be recovered from the officer/official at fault for non generation /providing of bill to

the consumer despite directions of this Forum in the earlier case in terms of order dated 12.6.17. Case is






the competent authority within one month from the date of receipt of the order of the Forum as per


Forum for Redressal of Grievances of consumers, Electricity Ombudsman and Consumer Advocacy) Regulations-2016.








In the matter of complaint of Sh. Naveen Kumar s/o Sh. Ram Bhagat, VPO Digawan Jattan

(Bhiwani) regarding release of new electricity connection .


V/s

XEN (OP) S/U Divn. DHBVN Bhiwani SDO (OP) Sub Divn., DHBVN Digawan Jattan


Present

For the Respondent

1 Nodal Officer CGRF,DHBVN Hisar.. 2 Representative of SDO



ORDER

Sh. Naveen Kumar s/o Sh. Ram Bhagat, VPO Digawan Jattan (Bhiwani) has applied for new

electricity connection under SDO/Op. Sub-Division DHBVN, Digawan Jattan, hence this Forum has


The complainants have filed present complaint stating that they have purchased land in the

name Smt. Anju Devi w/o Anil Kumar. The seller is Bala Ram s/o Sh. Dalip r/o Digawan Jattan. The

sellers are three brothers and one Sh. Ram Chander owes some dues to respondent Nigam. Sh. Ram

Chander is existing consumer of Nigam. In the land he purchased there was no connection earlier.

The complainant stated that they need a electricity connection in the land purchased which has been

denied on the grounds of the premises/land being defaulter of respondent Nigam and requested for

direction of release of connection.



case.


representative of respondent SDO were present. The complainant argued the case in line with written

submission and insisted for release of connection on the grounds that there is no defaulting amount

outstanding on the portion of land for which new connection applied for by him. The complainant

argued that the Nigam is favouring Sh. Ram Chander by not transferring and recovering the defaulting

amount outstanding in the name of RSB Poultry Form. The representative of Sub Divn. was present

and informed the Forum that an application for release of NDS connection was deposited in the office

on 26.9.16 in the name of Smt. Anju Goel w/o Sh. Anil Goel and during scrutiny of case file it was

found that an amount of Rs.460337.00 is outstanding against RSB Poultry Farm a/c No.DD-21-1324

on the same premises hence the connection could not be released in the premises being defaulter as

per instructions of the Nigam and application stands cancelled. A notice to Sh. Ram Chander s/o Sh.

Dalip Singh of Digawan Jattan was also issued vide No.4075 dated 20.4.17 mentioning therein that an

electricity connection in the name of RSB Poultry Farm was situated in their common land which was

disconnected due to non-payment of bills and Rs.460337.00 is required to be deposited failing which

amount shall be transferred in existing account DD-1D/1897 and connection shall be disconnected in

case of non-payment. The S/D representative also informed the forum that enquiry in the matter has

already been conducted and report sent to XEN (OP) S/U Bhiwani vide letter No. 3368 dated 15.3.17

confirming the facts. Copies of above records alongwith registry deed of the land purchased placed

before the Forum.

After going through the records and hearing both the parties the Forum finds that:

1. The connection has been applied for in the name of Smt. Anju Devi w/o Sh.Anil Goyal whereas present complaint has been filed before this Forum by one Sh. Naveen Kumar s/o Ram Bhagat.

No authority letter/proof of local standi has been filed to satisfy the claim/interest of the complainant in the matter.

2. As per the registered deed, the land has been sold by Satbir, Bala and Ram Chander S/o Dalip singh to Kiran Goel, Anju Goel and Babita. Thus Ram Chander in whose name the disconnected connection of M/s RSB Poultry Form bearing account No. DD-31-1324 was released is the seller party of the land and defaulter of respondent Nigam for Rs. 4,60,337/-. The land holding jointly owned by the sellers and transferred to the buyers as such through the registered deed.

3. The complainant could not prove that the land wherein connection has been applied is an independent unit in the record of revenue department and no certificate of Revenue authorities or other document of settlement separating the land from the joint holding has been placed before the Forum except a Sizra Report which does not prove the separate demarcation of land in favour of the complainant.

The Forum agrees with the version of S/D that the land where the connection has been

applied is a common holding and earlier a connection in the name of RSB Poultry Farm exists

which owes arrears to the Nigam and owing to defaulting amount the new connection in the

same premises cannot be released. The Forum therefore finds no merit in the complaint and

decides to dismiss the same. No cost on either side. The case is closed.





Regulations-2016.









In the matter of complaint of Sh. Amit Kumar, Shop No.832 Auto Market, Hisar.

regarding wrong billing


V/s

XEN (OP) Divn. DHBVN Hisar SDO City S/D DHBVN Hisar

…….Respondents


None




ORDER Sh. Amit Kumar, Shop No.832 Auto Market, Hisar has got an electricity connection

bearing account No. 3521208457 under (OP) City Sub Divn. Hisar hence this Forum has jurisdiction to hear the complaint.

The complainant has filed present complaint stating therein that wrong bills by showing

fictitious reading/average reading being issued to him due to meter installed on pole which is tilted

as a result of motor accident and reading not visible. The complainant requested for Redressal of her grievance.



The proceedings held at Hisar on 06.10.2017. The complainant was not present nor any representative appeared on his behalf. Representative of respondent SDO was present and

informed the Forum that actual meter reading has been got noted and revised bill on actual

consumption basis is under issue to consumer.

After considering the submission of respondent, the Forum decides to dispose of the complaint with the direction to respondent to provide revised corrected bill to complainant within a

week’s time after adjusting the average /provisional billing. Case is closed. Both the parties to bear their own cost.






Consumer Advocacy) Regulations-2016. File be consigned to record. Given under our hands on this day of 6th October 2017. .




Case No. DH/CGRF- 1901/2017 Date of Institution: 15.09.2017 Date of Hearing: 19.09.2017 Date of Order : 20.09.2017



In the matter of complaint of Smt. Mosmi Devi w/o Sh. Ram Krishan near Bharat Gas Agency

NH-8 Bawal, Rewari regarding wrong billing.


V/s

XEN (OP) DHBVN Dharuhera SDO (OP) S/Divn. Bawal

…….Respondents

Appearance:-

For Complainant:

Representative

For the Respondent




ORDER Smt. Mosmi Devi w/o Sh. Ram Krishan near Bharat Gas Agency NH-8 Bawal, Rewari has got an

electricity connection bearing account No. LB1D-0160 under (OP) Sub Divn Bawal hence this Forum has


The complainant has filed the present complaint stating that during the year 2016, bill for Rs.37137.00

was issued to her. She paid an amount to Rs.35000.00 to one Sh. Bali s/o Sh. Sula Ram a building supplier which has not been credited in her account/bill so far. The complainant stated that she has paid the amount upto

August-2017 and requested that no further penalty be imposed due to fault in meter now onwards. She also

requested for rectification/replacement of defective meter at her premises.


parties were asked to appear before the Forum on 19.09.2017 at Rewari for hearing of the case.

The proceedings held at Rewari on 19.09.17. The representative of complainant and respondent SDO

were present. The representative of complainant argued the case in line with written submission. The SDO submitted reply through Nodal Officer/CGRF, vide his memo No. 9787 dated 19.09.2017, stating that on receipt

of complaint under XYZ scheme the premises of the complainant was checked by JE Incharge and found that

supply running through meter and meter working OK with connected load as 5.634 KW and reading in the meter

as 30022. She was charged according to pending reading and excess load found at the time of checking with

reference to the records in the energy account. No amount of Rs. 35000/- was deposited by her in the month of

06/2016 as claimed by the complainant in her complaint. The SDO further intimated that penal action has been

taken against the meter reading agency for accumulation/leaving of unbilled reading. The SDO further stated that

for the satisfaction of consumer she was requested to associate in checking of the meter but she is not forthcoming for checking. The complainant informed the Forum that she has already deposited outstanding dues

in the month of September, 2017 and is also ready to associate in checking of meter from Lab. She requested to

expedite the checking of the meter accordingly.

After examining the record in case file, the Forum decides to dispose of the complaint in terms of reply of

SDO with the direction that the meter of consumer may be got checked from M&T lab in the presence of

consumer by issuing due notice and further action may be taken as per applicable Nigam instructions based on

M&T report accordingly. Case is closed. Both the parties to bear their own.


Regulations-2016, the implementation of this decision may be intimated to this office within 30 days from the date

of its receipt.


competent authority 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







Case No. DH/CGRF-1902/2017 Date of Institution:15/09/2017 Date of Hearing: 22/09/2017 Date of order: 25/10/2017


1. K D Bansal, Member Technical-cum Chirman 2 Rajesh Sharma, Member Accounts

In the matter of complaint of Smt. Kamlesh w/o of Sh. Ram Kishan, Near Ram Rakh

Bagri Depot, Ward No. 4, Ellanabad, Distt. Sirsa regarding wrong billing.


V/s

1 Xen/Op. S/U Division, DHBVN, Sirsa 2 SDO (OP) Sub-Division, DHBVN, Ellanabad

…….Respondents


Representative




ORDER

Smt. Kamlesh w/o of Sh. Ram Kishan, Near Ram Rakh Bagri Depot, Ward No. 4,

Ellanabad, Distt. Sirsa has got an electricity connection bearing A/C No. 8242111111 under

SDO/Op Sub-Division, DHBVN, Ellanabd, hence this Forum has jurisdiction to hear the

complaint.

The complainant has filed the present complaint stating therein that her meter jumped

leading to issue of bills for high amount. The Nigam has replaced the meter. The complainant

requested for correction of bill enabling her to make payment accordingly.




The proceedings of the case held at Sirsa on 22/09/2017. The representative of

complainant and respondent SDO were present. The SDO filed written reply vide No. 2574

dated 22/09/2016 stating therein that meter of consumer was replaced vide MCO No.

82421111651 dated 3/04/2017 and removed meter referred to M&T Lab for verification of its

working on consumer’s consent. According to M&T Lab Sirsa report No. 51 dated 26/04/2017

reading is 24320.3 KWH, seals are intact and working within permissible limits hence his office

is unable to rectify the actual consumption basis bill. The consumer representative submitted

that his load is only 1.00 KW and consumption is low hence the bill for higher amount is not

justified at all.

After hearing the parties, the case is adjourned with the direction to the respondents to

place on records last 5 years consumption data of the consumer alongwith latest checking

report of consumer premises in LL-1 on or before the next date.

Proceedings of the case held at Sirsa on 24/10/2017. The representative of the

complainant and respondent SDO were present. The complainant reiterated his earlier

arguments and insisted for withdrawal of excess charges. The respondent SDO filed the

consumption data and checking report.

After examination of the records in the case file and hearing of the parties, the Forum

finds that this is a case of accumulation of the readings as the meter working found OK during

checking and the consumption trend shown increase after replacement of meter. The Forum

therefore, decides to dispose off the complaint in terms of the reply of the respondent with the

direction that the accumulated readings be segregated in the last one year for billing purpose so

as to allow the applicable slab benefit to the consumer. The penal action against the meter

reading agency/Reader be taken by the respondent Nigam in terms of the contract/applicable

guidelines for recording incorrect readings/accumulation. The case is closed. Both the parties to

bear their own cost. As required under Haryana State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Guidelines for











Case No. DH/CGRF-1903/2017 Date of Institution:15/09/2017 Date of Hearing: 22/09/2017 Date of Order: 22/09/2017



In the matter of complaint of Sh. Dalip Singh S/o Sh. Joginder Singh (C/o Sh. Harnek Singh)

Village Haboli, Tehsil, Rania, Distt. Sirsa regarding wrong billing.


V/s

1 Xen/Op. S/U Division, DHBVN, Sirsa 2 SDO (OP) Sub-Division, DHBVN, Rania

…….Respondents


Present




ORDER

Sh. Dalip Singh S/o Sh. Joginder Singh (C/o Sh. Harnek Singh) Village Haboli, Tehsil,

Rania, Distt. Sirsa has got an electricity connection bearing A/C No. T22/SR29-3285 under SDO/Op

Sub-Division, DHBVN, Rania, hence this Forum has jurisdiction to hear the complaint.

The complainant has filed the present complaint stating therein that his meter was replaced

and thereafter average basis bills are being sent to him instead on actual consumption. The

complainant requested for correction of his bills.


and both the parties were asked to appear before the Forum on 22/09/2017 at Sirsa for hearing of

the case.

The proceedings of the case held at Sirsa on 22/09/2017. The complainant and

representative of respondent SDO were present. The SDO filed written reply vide No. Spl-1 dated

22/09/2016 stating therein that account of the consumer already overhauled vide SC&AR No.

41?138 and the consumer has deposited corrected bill of Rs. 8049 on 22/09/2017. The consumer is

now satisfied. The complainant also deposed that he is satisfied with the action taken by SDO on

his grievance.

As the grievance of the complainant has already been redressed, the Forum decides to

dispose of the complainant in terms of reply of the SDO and satisfaction filed by the complainant.









Present:


In the complaint of Sh. Ram Veer, H.N. 1191 Harkesh Nagar, Tilpat, Faridabad



V/s


…….Respondents

Appearance:-





ORDER

Sh. Ram Veer, H.N. 1191 Harkesh Nagar, Tilpat, Faridabad, has got an electricity

connection bearing account No.2375268966 under (OP) Sub-Division, DHBVN, Tilpat, hence this


The complainant has filed the present complaint stating therein that actual meter reading is

not taken and bills are raised on fictitious reading causing hardship. Complainant requested for




the case.



SDO filed written statement vide No.495 dated 10.10.17 stating that consumer billing group initiated

for billing and correction in the bill will be reflected in ensuing bill of consumer.

After considering the reply and perusal of past reading, the Forum noted that actual readings

are not taken by meter reading agency regularly causing accumulation of reading and inflated bill to the consumer. The forum therefore decides that revised bill of the consumer be prepared as per

actual reading in the meter as on date by giving applicable slab benefits to consumer for the last one

year. Case is closed. Both the parties to bear own cost.















1 K D Bansal, Member Technical-cum-Chairman 2 Rajesh Sharma, Member Accounts

In the matter of complaint of Sh. Jai Dev s/o Village Bara Gudha Distt Sirsa regarding

release of NDS connection and related issues.


V/s

1 Xen/Op. City Division, DHBVN, Sirsa 2 SDO (OP) Sub-Division, DHBVN, Panjuana

…….Respondents


Present




ORDER

Sh. Jai Dev s/o Village Bara Gudha Distt Sirsa has applied an electricity connection

under SDO/Op Sub-Division, DHBVN, Panjuana, hence this Forum has jurisdiction to hear the

complaint.

The complainant has filed the present complaint stating therein that he applied for a

poultry farm connection in the month of March-2017 but connection has not been released so

far. Sh. Radhey Sham AFM/JE demanded bribe for release of connection. After lodging

complaint on CM Window portal a demand notice No. 3006 dated 5.9.17 issued wherein date of

application mentioned at 31.8.17 which is wrong. He was compelled to deposit Rs.57637.00

which he deposited in time. The complainant requested to take necessary action against Sh.

Radhey Sham JE for violation of HERC Regulation and for demanding of bribe besides the

following:-

1. His application be converted from HT to LT line.

2. Amount already recovered by wrong demand notice be refunded after approbation of

HT and LT.

3. Penalty under Regulation No.6.1 for delay as he applied connection on 31.3.17 and

keeping application pending for 150 days causing loss and denial of electricity

connection by the Licensee.






was present who filed written reply vide No. 3255 dated 22/09/2016 stating therein that as per

record of office, complainant applied for NDS connection on 30.8.2017 vide A&A No.50538.

AFM Incharge of area deputed Sh. Brij Lal ALM for site verification. Sh. Radhey Sham AFM also

visited the site. It is not true that Sh. Radhe Shyam AFM has told to the complainant about

paying/depositing Rs.270000.00 for his NDS connection because total length of HT line is only

445 meters. When the lenghth is 445 mtrs. why 17 poles are required for this short length. As

per SC NO.D-23/2017 if the length is about 150 meters, then consumer is not required to

deposit nothing besides security and if the length is above 150 meter consumer will be

depositing Rs.175.00 per meter. About the LT pole from where the length of site of complainant

is 270 feet as mentioned by complainant, in the complaint is true but connection cannot be

given from this pole as length of LT line is about 7-8 Killas from T/F and as per policy of Nigam,

LT line can be given only 300 meter from T/F. Charges of bribe not substantive by complainant.

The complainant was called in S/D and policy of Nigam for prov. Electricity connection was

explained to him but he was not satisfied and also not ready to deposit cost of HT line for his

connection and wants that Nigam to provide HT line for his NDS connection free of cost which is

not possible. But now applicant deposited ACD and other charges in his office and after this all

formalities have been completed by his office. Allocation of material has been made by office of

XEN(OP) City vide memo No.13658 dated 15.9.17 the material will be drawn and connection

will be released as soon as possible.

As the complainant was not present and being the first hearing, the case is adjourned to

next hearing to provide him a final opportunity to present his case. Case is adjourned to next

date with the direction to respondent SDO to file a copy of A&A form originally applied by

complainant and estimate prepared for release of connection alongwith status of release of

connection on or before next date.


SDO were present. The respondent filed that the connection has already been released to the

complainant and detailed position of the applicable instructions/charging explained but

complainant is not satisfied and insisting for action against Sh. Radhey Shyam AFM. The

complainant was present and insisted for action against the JE/AFM for demanding bribe and

delay in release of connection for which he may be compensated.

After considering the records in the case file and hearing of the parties, the Forum finds

that the connection to the complainant already released and position of instructions applicable in

the case explained to complainant by the respondents. The delay in processing/release of

connection was not proved as the cost of A&A form, processing charges and ACD found

deposited on 30/08/2017.

The Forum therefore decides to dispose off the complaint in terms of the reply of the

respondents. Regarding the action against the Nigam officials for bribery etc. the complainant is

at liberty to approach appropriate authorities on jurisdictional grounds. Case is closed no cost

on either side.





Ombudsman and Consumer Advocacy) Regulations-2016. File be consigned to record. Given under our hands on this day of 25th October 2017.






Present:


In the complaint of Smt. Omwati w/o Ranbir Singh, H.N. 2471 B Block NIT SGM

Nagar, Gali No.1, 22 feet Road, Faridabad regarding change of name.


V/s

1 XEN (OP) Divn. DHBVN, Old Faridabad 2 SDO (OP) Sub Divn No.4 DHBVN Faridabad

…….Respondents

Appearance:-





ORDER

Smt. Omwati w/o Ranbir Singh, H.N. 2471 B Block NIT SGM Nagar, Gali No.1, 22 feet

Road Faridabad, has got an electricity connection under (OP) Sub-Division, DHBVN No.4,


The complainant has filed the present complaint stating therein that she applied for change

of name from K.S.Dunir to Smt. Om Wati on 9.2.17. However S/D has changed the name in another

connection from Smt. Saroj Devi to Smt. Om Wati. Complainant requested for redressal of her

grievance.



the case.


present nor any representative appeared on her behalf and respondent SDO was present.

Respondent SDO filed written statement vide No. 363 dated 10.10.17 stating therein the file was submitted for change of name of Smt. Om Wati on 9.2.17. In this file account No. was mentioned

wrongly i.e. 0039040000 in place of correct number 0019040000 hence the incorrect name change

entered in the system by CC/TEO. The respondent SDO orally submitted that matter is already in his

knowledge; correction has been initiated and shall be reflected in the next bill of consumer as per

correct particulars now entered in the system.

Keeping in view written statement and oral submission of respondent, the Forum decides to

dispose of the complaint with the direction to affect change of name with correct particulars within 15

days time. Case is closed. Both the parties to bear own cost.















Present:


In the complaint of Sh. Gurmeet Singh, H.N.134, SF AE Main, Faridabad



V/s

1 XEN (OP) Divn. DHBVN, Old Faridabad 2 SDO (OP) Mathura Road Sub Divn , DHBVN Faridabad

…….Respondents

Appearance:-





ORDER

Sh. Gurmeet Singh, H.N.134, SF AE Main Faridabad, has got an electricity connection

bearing account No. 5320450000 under (OP) Mathura Road Sub-Division, DHBVN, Faridabad,


The complainant has filed the present complaint stating therein that bill of Rs.90161.00 has

been issued which is not as per actual consumption in the meter. Complainant requested for




the case.



SDO filed written statement vide No. 1850 dated 09.10.17 stating therein that meter of consumer

was changed. The MCO could not be entered in the system. Now the bill has been corrected by

allowing refund of Rs.21383.00. Copy of revised bill also placed on record.

As the bill of consumer has already been corrected, the Forum therefore, decides to dispose

of complaint in terms of reply of respondent. Case is closed. Both the parties to bear own cost.












1. K D Bansal, Member Technical-cum-Chairman 2 Rajesh Sharma, Member Accounts

In the matter of complaint of M/s Namdev Gram Udyog, Nauharia Bajar Sirsa regarding

wrong billing. ..…Complainant/Petitioner

V/s


…….Respondents


Present




ORDER

M/s Namdev Gram Udyog, Nauharia Bajar Sirsa has got an electricity connection

bearing account No.6594480000 under SDO/Op City Sub-Division, DHBVN, Sirsa, hence this


The complainant has filed the present complaint stating therein that their KVAH reading

in the meter is incorrect leading to wrong bill. The complainant requested for correction of

reading and bill so as to redress the grievance.


and both the parties were asked to appear before the Forum on 24/10/2017 at Sirsa for hearing

of the case.

Proceedings of the case held at Sirsa on 24/10/2017. The complainant and

representative of respondent SDO were present. The complainant argued the case in line with

written submission and insisted for correction of KVAH reading. The complainant also stated

that the pole broken causing earthing of his motor that lead to abnormal consumption.

The respondent SDO filed written reply vide No. 8490 dated 23/10/2017 stating therein

that the consumer lodged a complaint with the sub division vide No. 5663 and area incharge JE

reported meter creeping fast. After that consumer deposited testing fee on 5/06/2017 to check

the meter tested from the Lab. In the Lab testing as per challan No, 78 dated 31/08/2017 the

meter found within permissible limit. The meter again checked by M&T Lab Hisar vide challan

No. 30 dated 12/10/2017 and found within permissible limit. Copies of challan and consumption

details of consumer from Dec. 2015 to September, 2017 placed on records.

After examination of records in the case file and hearing of the parties the Forum

observed that the consumer meter found within permissible limits during checking in lab first at

Sirsa and again at Hisar. The report of JE also states that the meter was creeping which

suggests earthing fault in the electrical installation of the consumer. The Licensee Nigam cannot

be held responsible for earthing fault in internal installations. The Forum therefore decides to

dispose off the complaint in terms of the reply of the respondent.







Given under our hands on this day of 25nd October, 2017.







In the matter of complaint of Sh. Rajiv Kumar (through Sunil Kumar Ganeriwala) Old

Committee Street, Near Suratgarhia Bazar Sirsa regarding wrong billing.


V/s

1 Xen/Op. City Division, DHBVN, Sirsa 2 SDO (OP) Ind. Area Sub-Division, DHBVN, Sirsa

…….Respondents


Present




ORDER

Sh. Rajiv Kumar Old Committee Street, Near Suratgarhia Bazar Sirsa has got an

electricity connection bearing account No. 6448670000 under SDO/Op Ind. Area Sub-Division,


The complainant has filed the present complaint through Sunil Kumar Ganeriwala stating

therein that his connection was disconnected in Dec. 2016 on account of nonpayment of bill

which was wrong in the first instance. His meter was replaced in 11/2015 and again in 3/2016.

Both meters were defective. He reported the matter with Nigam but bills were not corrected.

Supply disconnected in 12/2016. He is small consumer with meager load in his two rooms set

house. The Nigam has neither corrected the bill nor restored power supply even after launching

of schemes of surcharge waiver. The complainant requested for correction of bill and restoration

of power supply.



of the case.


representative of respondent SDO were present. The complainant argued the case in line with

written submission and insisted for correction of bill and restoration of supply. The respondent

SDO filed written reply vide No. 3312 dated 12/10/2017 stating therein that the consumer

premises was checked by OP team vide LL-1 No. 24/406 dated 1/09/2015, meter packed and

sent to lab for verification. During verification unit difference of 1211 units found and charged

vide SC&AR No. 133/146/R for Rs. 10404/- However, the same difference again charged due to

RAPDRP system wrongly which has already been adjusted vide SC&AR No. 100/149 R. The

premises was again checked on 26/03/2016 vide LL-1 No. 50/418, meter packed and sent to

Lab and unit difference of 299 units charged vide SC&AR No. 322/146R. Copy of consumption

data from 10/2014 to 12/2016, LL-1 of 2015 and lab report placed on records.

After examination of record and hearing both the parties, the Forum observed that

the complainant has been billed as per consumption. Actual load at site found in excess during

checking of 9/2015 including AC load. Meter working within permissible limit. No payment of

bills made by the complainant after 8/07/2015. The Forum therefore finds no merit in the

compliant and decides to dismiss the same. The case is closed. Both the parties to bear their

own cost.









In the matter of complaint of Sh. Baljeet S/o Sh. Krishan VPO Sherpura, Nathusari Distt.

Sirsa regarding wrong billing.


V/s

1 Xen/Op. S/U Division, DHBVN, Sirsa 2 SDO (OP) , DHBVN, Nathusari

…….Respondents


Present




ORDER

Sh. Baljeet S/o Sh. Krishan VPO Sherpura, Nathusari Distt. Sirsa has got an electricity

connection bearing account No. SN-34-1784 under SDO/Op Sub-Division, DHBVN, Nathusari,


The complainant has filed the present complaint stating therein that huge and excess bill

has been issued to him and supply disconnected. The complainant requested for correction of

bill and restoration of power supply/RCO so as to redress the grievance.



of the case.


SDO were present. The complainant argued the case in line with written submission and stated

that whatever bills have been raised to him during the past he paid all as such. Now suddenly

bill for huge amount on the grounds of balance units has been issued and supply disconnected

due to non payment. In case wrong readings taken by the Nigam he cannot be penalized. The

respondent SDO filed written reply vide No. 2208 dated 23/10/2017 stating therein that

reading in November, 2014 was taken incorrect and meter shown dead stop. Again in March,

2017 the reading shown incorrect with meter dead stop. In May, 2017 total consumption was

shown as 8405 and meter working OK. The consumer has not paid any amount after 12/2016

and supply disconnected on 27/07/2017 and an amount of Rs. 135271/- is pending. The meter

got tested from the Lab and working found ok. Consumption data for the period 11/2014 to

9/2017 also placed on record alongwith Lab report of 5/09/2017.

A perusal of the consumption data reveals that:

1. In May, 2017 the old and new readings have been shown as 2035 and 10440

whereas in March, the old reading already reported as 17025. Similarly there is

discrepancy in the reading of July, 2017.

2. The consumer billed on provisional basis in the entire period for which the data

placed on records.

3. Periodic actual readings have been shon in the meter still the working of meter

shown as dead stop/defective and billing done on provisional basis for 80-104 units

only though actual consumption was much more.

4. The working of the meter declared ok in the lab with final reading as 18590 kwh.

Keeping in view of the above facts, the Forum decides to dispose off the complaint

with the direction that:

1. The account of the consumer may be overhauled from installation of present

meter to the date of disconnection at final reading of 18590/ by segregating the

consumption over the entire period at applicable tariff and slab benefit.

2. The penal action against the officials of the sub division alongwith meter rading

agency for manipulating the reading and status of the meter may be taken in

terms of the extent instructions.

The case is closed. Both the parties to bear their own cost. As required under Haryana State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Guidelines for










.






In the matter of complaint of Sh. Tara Chand S/o Sh. Dolat Ram VPO Nathusari, Distt.



V/s


…….Respondents


None




ORDER

Sh. Tara Chand S/o Sh. Dolat Ram VPO Nathusari, Distt. Sirsa has got an electricity

connection bearing account No. SN-33-3332 under SDO/Op Sub-Division, DHBVN, Nathusari,


The complainant has filed the present complaint stating therein that wrong bill issued to

him on account of incorrect reading in meter. However, no details of reading/bill etc. given in

the complaint. The complainant requested for correction of bill so as to redress the grievance.



of the case.


nor did any representative appear on his behalf. The respondent SDO was present. The

respondent SDO filed written reply vide No. 2177 dated 29/09/2017 stating therein that

incorrect reading i.e. less than actual at site, has been recorded by the meter reader leading to

accumulation of reading. In January, 2017 the actual units in meter i.e. 21340 taken and meter

status shown as dead stop. After checking of records the bill for actual consumption of 19219

units (21340-2121) charged in consumer account for Rs. 156317/- The total outstanding from

the consumer as on date is Rs. 199143/- The4 action against the meter reading agency has bee

taken by imposing fine of Rs. 5000/ as per work order. The meter of the consumer has been got

checked from the Lab and working found ok. Consumption data for the period 7/14 to 1/2017

also placed on record alongwith Lab report of 12/06/2017.

After considering the above facts of the case, the Forum finds this is a case of

accumulation of reading at the end of meter reader/reading agency. The meter working is ok

and consumer has been charged on actual consumption basis after detecting the accumulation.

The Forum decides to dispose off the complaint with the direction that:

1. The account of the consumer may be overhauled from installation of present

meter to the date of dispute (January, 2017) up to final reading of 21340 by

segregating the consumption over the entire period at applicable tariff and slab

benefit.

2. The penal action against the meter reader/Meter reading agency for manipulating

the reading and status of the meter may be taken in terms of the extent

instructions of the Nigam.







In the matter of complaint of Sh. Rajinder S/o Sh. Ram Singh VPO Shahuwala, Distt.



V/s


…….Respondents


None




ORDER

Sh. Rajinder S/o Sh. Ram Singh VPO Shahuwala, Distt. Sirsa regarding wrong billing

has got an electricity connection bearing account No. SN-12-5205 under SDO/Op Sub-Division,

DHBVN, Nathusari, Sirsa, hence this Forum has jurisdiction to hear the complaint.

The complainant has filed the present complaint stating therein that excess bill of Rs.

35026/- has been raised to him. He has deposited Rs. 8200/- with Nigam and unable to deposit

the balance amount being a poor man and requested for correction of bill.



of the case.


nor did any representative appear on his behalf. The respondent SDO was present. The

respondent SDO filed written reply vide No. 2178 dated 16/10/2017 stating therein that reading

and meter status from March, 2013 to March, 2017 were shown incorrect. During July, 2017 the

reading consumed has been noted as 4296 and bill of Rs. 32220/- issued accordingly. Now the

consumption has been divided in 54 months and an amount of Rs. 5796/- has been

refunded/adjusted by revising the bill. At present Rs. 23117/- is outstanding from the consumer.

The meter reading agency has been fined for Rs. 5000/- for taking incorrect reading. The meter

of the consumer has been got checked from the lab and working found ok. Consumption data of

complainant for the period 3/2013 to 7/2017 and lab report also placed on record.

After examination of the records in the case file and hearing of the respondents the

Forum decides to dispose off the complaint with the direction that account of the consumer may

be overhauled from installation of present meter to the date of removal of the meter at final

reading of 7676 by segregating the consumption over the entire period at applicable tariff and

slab benefit and after giving due credits for the amount already paid by the consumer. The penal

action against the meter reading agency already taken by the Licensee.

The case is closed. Both the parties to bear their own cost. As required under Haryana State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Guidelines for





appeal before the competent authority 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


File be consigned to record. Given under our hands on this day of 25nd October, 2017.







In the matter of complaint of Sh. Ram Lal S/o Sh. Hazara Ram VPO Khairekan, Distt.



V/s

1 Xen/Op. City Division, DHBVN, Sirsa 2 SDO (OP) , DHBVN, Panjuana

…….Respondents


Present

For the Respondent 1 Nodal Officer/CGRF, DHBVN, Hisar 2 Representative



ORDER

Sh. Ram Lal S/o Sh. Hazara Ram VPO Khairekan, Distt. Sirsa has got an electricity

connection bearing account No. SP02-0330 DS under SDO/Op Sub-Division, DHBVN,

Panjuana Sirsa, hence this Forum has jurisdiction to hear the complaint.

The complainant has filed the present complaint (through representative) stating therein

that their meter got burnt in rainy season. They have been paying the bills regularly. Now the

average for full year has been charged which is wrong and requested for correction of bill by

taking average of corresponding period. The complainant requested for correction of bill so as to

redress the grievance.



of the case.


representative of respondent sub division were present. The complainant argued the case in

line with written submissions and requested for withdrawal of excess charging in his account.

Respondent SDO filed written reply vide No. 3476 dated 17/10/17 stating therein that the

consumer lodged complaint regarding damage of meter. The meter was replaced on 14/08/2-17

and old meter packed in the presence of consumer and sent to lab. The account of consumer

overhauled for the period of last one year as per sales circular No. 43/2007 vide SC&AR No.

43/232 dated 21/07/2017. The total bill is Rs. 18761/- A sum of Rs. 10,000/- deposited on

18/09/2017 and balance is outstanding. The consumer has been requested to deposit the

balance amount at the earliest. Copy of LL-1 and MCO placed on record.

After considering the above facts of the case and hearing of the parties, the Forum

observed that meter has been replaced on the request of the consumer. No

discrepancy/adverse opinion expressly recorded on the LL-1 dated 14/08/2017 and meter found

installed on pole and fully burnt. The Forum therefore, decides to dispose off the complaint with

the direction that the account of the consumer for the period 12/2016 may be overhauled as per

basis provided in regulation No. 6.9.1 (1) (a to c) whichever is higher, of HERC Electricity

Supply Code duly adopted by the Licensee vide sales circular No. D-26/2016.

The Forum further observed that the consumer case has been mis-handled in the sub

division including non checking of the meter from Lab despite packing the same at site and

charging without any checking leading to harassment. As such a token compensation of Rs.

1000/- in terms of provisions of the HERC Standards of Performance is hereby allowed to the

consumer. The amount of compensation be recovered from the official concerned found at fault

in the matter.






In the matter of complaint of Sh. Parmod Kumar s/o Sh. Madan Lal Garg, H.N. 350A,

Ward9, Chaudhary Mohalla, inside Barsi Gate Hansi Hisar. regarding wrong billing


V/s

XEN (OP) Divn. DHBVN Hansi SDO (OP) City S/D DHBVN Hansi

…….Respondents


Present




ORDER Sh. Parmod Kumar s/o Sh. Madan Lal Garg, H.N. 350A, Ward9, Chaudhary Mohalla,

inside Barsi Gate Hansi has an electricity connection baring account No. 2847300000 under SDO

(OP) City S/Divn. Hansi hence this Forum has jurisdiction to hear the complaint. The complainant has filed present complaint stating therein that no bill has been raised to

him in the last six months. He approached S/D and bill of Rs.41183.00 given to him which is highly on excessive side. He is a regular payee consumer and nothing is outstanding The complainant

requested for Redressal of her grievance. The complaint was forwarded to the Nodal Officer for filing the written reply of the Nigam and


The proceedings held at Hisar on 06.10.2017. The complainant and representative of respondent SDO were present. The complainant argued his case in line with written submission and requested for correction of his bills as per actual consumption in the meter and acceptance of

payment in instalments as no bills have been raised to him in the last 6 months. The representative of respondent S/D was present and requested for allowing some more time to file written statement.

After hearing both the parties, the Forum finds that this a case of accumulation of reading/billing on provisional basis. The Forum therefore decides to dispose of the complaint with

the direction to SDO to get the meter checked at site and prepare revised bill as per actual

consumption in the meter as on date. The amount recoverable as per revised bill may be accepted

from consumer in five installments alongwith regular bill without levy of surcharge on the balance amount of revised bill. Case is closed. Both the parties to bear their own cost.








.




Case No. DH/CGRF- 1926/2017 Date of Institution: 28.09.2017 Date of Hearing 06.10.2017 Date of Order : 09.10.2017



In the matter of complaint Smt. Gyanwati Bishnoi, MG Heritage Farm, Village Dhandoor

Hisar. regarding release of connection


V/s

XEN (OP) Divn.No.1 DHBVN Hisar SDO City S/D DHBVN Hisar

…….Respondents


Present




ORDER Smt. Gyanwati Bishnoi, MG Heritage Farm, Village Dhandoor Hisar has applied for a

new NDS electricity connection under (OP) City Sub Divn. Hisar hence this Forum has


The complainant has filed present complaint stating therein that she applied for a new

NDS connection on 28.12.16 but connection has not been released in spite of repeatedly

approaching concerned office. The complainant requested for Redressal of her grievance.



of the case.

The proceedings held at Hisar on 06.10.2017. The complainant and representative of

respondent SDO were present. Complainant argued the case in line with written submission.

The representative of S/D informed the Forum that release of connection to complainant is

delayed due to decision taken by Nigam management to include the Dhandoor village under

RAPDRP. The system formalities/data requirement have now been completed and release of

connection is under process and likely to be released by 11.10.2017.

After hearing the parties, the Forum decides to dispose of the complaint with the

direction to the respondent to release the connection to complainant within a week’s time failing

which penalty as per HERC standard of performance shall be levied. Case is closed. Both the












(K.D.Bansal) (Rajesh Sharma) (Manu Bishnoi) Member Technical Member/Accounts Independent Member





Present:


In the matter of Sh. Gajraj Arya Distt. President Rashtraya Arya Kshritya Sabha,

Ward No.1, Bass Mohalla, Hathin (Palwal) regarding loose electricity wires


V/s

1 XEN (OP) Divn. DHBVN, Palwal 2 SDO (OP) Sub Divn, DHBVN Hatin

…….Respondents

Appearance:-





ORDER

Sh. Gajraj Arya Distt. Ward No.1, Bass Mohalla, Hathin (Palwal) has got an electricity

connection under (OP) Sub-Division, DHBVN, HATHIN, hence this Forum has jurisdiction to hear the

complaint.

The complainant has filed the present complaint stating therein that electricity wires from the

house of Ganga Ram Councilor to Baghelon Ki Chopal, are loose and hanging at the height of 8 feet

which may cause accident by electrocution or otherwise. Complainant requested for redressal of

grievance.



the case.

The proceedings of the case held at Faridabad on 12.09.2017. The complainant and

respondent SDO were present. Respondent SDO filed written statement vide No.1564 dated

9.10.17 stating that LRP work on City Feeder Hathin is under process, approx. 6.5 KM LT AB cable

has been replaced with LT conductor. He personally visited the site and one No. PCC pole is to be

to be erected to redress the grievance of complainant. During oral submission, the SDO informed

the Forum that the work shall be completed within 15 days time. The complainant also expressed

satisfaction on the reply and statement given by respondent SDO.

After hearing both the parties, the Forum decides to dispose of the complaint in terms of

written reply of SDO with the direction that remaining work of erection of pole be completed within 15

days time. Case is closed. Both the parties to bear own cost.












Present:


In the complaint of Sh. G.C. Gupta, H.N.722 Sector-15 Faridabad regarding

wrong billing.


V/s

1 XEN (OP) Divn. DHBVN, Old Faridabad 2 SDO (OP) East Sub Divn , DHBVN Faridabad

…….Respondents

Appearance:-





ORDER

Sh. G.C. Gupta, H.N.722 Sector-15 Faridabad, has got an electricity connection bearing

account No. 5931001000 under (OP) East Sub-Division, DHBVN, Faridabad, hence this Forum has


The complainant has filed the present complaint stating therein that average billing was done

during 5/16 to 7/16 and the average was not adjusted and wrong bills continued to be issued upto

Jan.2017. Complainant requested for correction of bill from 9/16 to Jan.2017.



the case.


respondent SDO were present. Respondent SDO filed written statement vide No. 579 dated

09.10.17 stating therein that consumer meter remained defective during 9/16 to 11/16 and was

replaced on 7.1.17. Average billing done during meter remained defective has now been adjusted by

allowing refund of Rs.13486.00. Reply of respondent was provided to complainant who expressed

satisfaction on action taken by SDO.

As the bill of consumer has already been corrected and complainant expressed satisfaction,

the Forum decides to dispose of complaint in terms of reply of respondent. Case is closed. Both the

parties to bear own cost.





Case No. DH/CGRF- 1931/2017 Date of Institution: 06/10/2017 Date of Hearing: 10/10/2017 Date of order: 12/10/2017


Present:


In the complaint of Sh. Chiranjib Roy Chaudhary, Plot No. C-64 A, 2nd Floor,

(back portion), near Sector-11 Police Chowki Faridabad regarding wrong billing.


V/s

1 XEN (OP) Divn. DHBVN, Old Faridabad 2 SDO (OP) East Sub Divn DHBVN Faridabad

…….Respondents

Appearance:-





ORDER

Sh. Chiranjib Roy Chaudhary, Plot No. C-64 A, 2nd Floor, (back portion), near Sector-11

Police Chowki Faridabad, has got an electricity connection bearing account No. 5810390000 (BB-

13/1199) under (OP) East Sub-Division, DHBVN , Faridabad, hence this Forum has jurisdiction to

hear the complaint.

The complainant has filed the present complaint stating therein that since installation of

meter at his premises in April 2013 his bills are being raised wrongly i.e. on the basis of consumption

shown in another meter (A/c No. BB-13/1101) as per details given in the complainant. The

complainant requested for redressal of his grievance.



the case.


respondent SDO were present. Respondent SDO filed written statement vide No. 580 dated 09.10.17 stating therein the account of the consumer has been checked and found that bills issued

on actual consumption recorded by the meter. However the documents relating to cable connected

to other account No. BB-13/1101 is not available and if such document is available with the

consumer, the complainant may provide the same to his office so as to make necessary

adjustment/correction in the bill.

The consumer was asked to produce all the documents as referred in his original complaint

addressed to Electricity Ombudsman, Haryana which were not found attached with the complaint

made to the Forum. The complainant however, submitted that he has already filed this case in the

court of law (Lok Adalat at Faridabad).

As the complainant has already approached the court of law in the same matter, the Forum

decides to dispose of the complaint accordingly. Case is closed. No costs on either side.




forum for redressal of consumer grievances · 2017. 11. 1. · anil kumar s/o sh. ram mehar, vide...

Documents