SARITA HALWAI Vs. C.G.VIDYUT VITRAN COMPANY
C G VIDYUT VITRAN COMPANY
Click here to view full judgement.
S. M. Kantikar, J. -
(1.) The present Revision Petition is against the impugned order dated 05.07.2017 of the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (hereinafter "State Commission") in Appeal No. 14/2017, where the appeal was dismissed and the order of the District Forum was upheld.
(2.) Brief facts relevant for the disposal of the case are that the complainant took a single phase connection from the OPs. The bills were paid regularly by the complainant. On 20.05.2014, one bill of Rs. 7,440/- was received by the complainant. The complainant approached the office of the OP for the high amount mentioned in the bill, and the bill amount was reduced to Rs. 6,010/- and the complainant was directed by OP vide notice dated 16.01.2015 to pay the arrears within two days and threatened for the connection in case of failure. Being aggrieved by the excessive quantum of bill, the complaint appealed District Forum and filed a complaint.
(3.) The OPs in their written version submitted that the complainant did not take a single phase connection but took a regular electricity connection. She was using TV, fridge, cooler, fan, CFL Bulb and the total load was 1190 volts. The actual reading of electricity consumption was concealed by the complainant in connivance with the meter reader. As per her will, the electricity bills were paid by her. On knowing about such misdeed of the complainant, a bill of Rs. 7,440/- was issued to the complainant on 07.05.2014 on the basis of actual consumption. Thereafter, the complainant approached the OP who sympathetically dealt with the matter and the consolidated unit rebate was adjusted and the bill was reduced to Rs. 6,010/- from Rs. 7,440/-. Even though, complainant failed to make payment of the reduced amount, therefore, she herself was responsible for disconnection of electricity supply.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.