Hans Raj Sharma vs GENERAL MANAGER, D.E.S.U.

THIS appeal has been filed by the complainant against the order of the District Forum No.1 dated 5th November, 1992 by which his complaint has been dismissed. 2 Briefly the facts of the case are that the complainant has got an electric connection at his house situated in village Bijwasan. He received electricity bill of Rs. 260.50 on 10th May, 1991 which was paid by him. Thereafter he received two bills of Rs. 1,121.97 & Rs. 2,770.17 ps. It is alleged that the complainant had not been residing in the village and consuming electricity. Thus, the bills which were received by him were not based on consumption of electricity and had been sent to harass him. He has also claimed damages against the respondent. 3. The complaint was resisted by the respondent. It is stated by them that the impugned bills had been issued to the complainant on account of fault in the computer. It is further stated that the revised bills of Rs. 1,389.59 ps. upto January, 1992 was sent to the complainant subsequently, which has not been paid by him. 4. The learned District Forum taking into consideration the revised bill, dismissed the complaint. The complainant has come up in appeal against that order of the District Forum to this Commission. 5. The only question that arises for determination is, whether the correct bills were submitted by the respondent to the complainant and if not with what effect ? The appellant has argued that he received a bill dated 30th October, 1990 of the amount of Rs. 260,50 which was duly paid by him. He submits that thereafter no fresh bill could be issued to him. The respondent on the other hand relied on the consolidated revised bill from January 1989 to March, 1989 amounting to Rs. 1,649.59 p. After deducting an amount of Rs. 260/- on account of the payment by him, the balance shown as due comes to Rs. 1,389.59. The bill was prepared in May, 1992. In the written statement the respondent has averred that the arrears upto January, 1992 were Rs. 1,38959 ps. Two amounts of Rs. 12/- each are included in the consolidated bill relating to the months of March and May. In fact after adding these two amounts the total comes to Rs. 1,389.59. It is not understandable as to how in the written statement it was averred that in January, 1992, the amount of Rs. 1,385.59 ps. was due, when that amount became due in May, 1992. It has been seen that the accounting of the respondent is faulty and generally a plea is taken by them, that the fault was on account of fault in the computer. The computer is operated by an employee of the respondent and in case correct data is not fed, how correct bills can be prepared by it. Thus, this argument is fallacious. 6. From the aforesaid circumstances, it is evident that the appellant has been put to unnecessary botheration and he had to come to the Court on account of issuance of incorrect bills by the respondent. After taking into consideration all the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the view that the appellant is entitled to the cost of litigation which we assess at Rs. 500/- . For the aforesaid reason we dismiss the appeal. However, the respondent is liable to pay Rs. 500/- as cost of litigation to the appellant. Appeal dismissed.