Haryana

Sonipat

339/2014

RAJINDER S/O LAXMI CHAND - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. J.E. UHBVNL SUB OFFICE,2. UHBVNL SONEPAT - Opp.Party(s)

L.S. KAUSHIK

23 Feb 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SONEPAT.

 

Complaint No.339 of 2014                             Instituted on:10.12.2014

                                Date of order:25.02.2016

 

 

Rajinder son of Lakhmi Chand, r/o village Guhna, Distt. Sonepat.

                                      ..Complainant.

 

                   Versus

 

1.JE UHBVN Sub Office Farmana, distt. Sonepat.

2.UHBVN through Executive Engineer, Fazilpur Power House, Distt. Sonepat.

                                           ..Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

BEFORE-    NAGENDER SINGH-PRESIDENT.

PRABHA DEVI-MEMBER.

D.V. RATHI-MEMBER.

 

Argued by: Sh. LS Kaushik, Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. Amit Balyan, Adv. for respondents.

          

O R D E R

 

          The present complaint has been filed by the complainant against the respondents alleging himself to be the consumer of the respondents vide connection no.FM-15-1211-L and he filed a petition titled as Rajinder Vs. UHBVN before Permanent Lok Adalat and the said petition is still pending.  But the respondent in order to harass the complainant has issued a bill for Rs.89585/- showing arrears of Rs.88861/-.  The said bill is wrong and illegal.  The complainant has requested the respondents several times to check the meter and to issue the bill as per actual consumption, but of no use. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        In reply, the respondents have submitted that they have issued the bill of Rs.89585/- and till now the complainant did not make the payment of even a single penny since 13.6.2006.  Hence an amount of Rs.109862/- is due against the complainant.  The officials of the Nigam visited the premises of the complainant for taking meter reading and the consumption of the meter was recorded.  When the complainant failed to deposit the bill amount, the officials of the Nigam went to disconnect the electricity supply, but the complainant was not found there.  So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by both the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also gone through the entire relevant record placed on the case file very carefully.

4.        Ld. Counsel for the respondents has submitted that they have issued the bill of Rs.89585/- and till now the complainant did not make the payment of even a single penny since 13.6.2006.  Hence an amount of Rs.109862/- is due against the complainant.  The officials of the Nigam visited the premises of the complainant for taking meter reading and the consumption of the meter was recorded.  When the complainant failed to deposit the bill amount, the officials of the Nigam went to disconnect the electricity supply, but the complainant was not found there.  So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

          On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant is the consumer of the respondents vide connection no.FM-15-1211-L and he filed a petition titled as Rajinder Vs. UHBVN before Permanent Lok Adalat and the said petition is still pending. It was also argued that the relief sought by the complainant vide petition before the Lok Adalat is different and there is no nexus between the said petition and the present complainant.  It is also submitted that the respondent in order to harass the complainant has issued a bill for Rs.89585/- showing arrears of Rs.88861/-.  The said bill is wrong and illegal.  The complainant has requested the respondents several times to check the meter and to issue the bill as per actual consumption, but of no use and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

5.        After hearing both the parties at length and after going through the entire relevant records available on the case file very carefully, we have come to the conclusion that there is vice-versa deficiency in service on both the parties.

          As far as the complainant is concerned, he used the electricity energy extensively & as per his free Will, but he failed to deposit the electricity energy charges with the respondents.

          On the other hand, the respondents  issued the electricity energy bill to the complainant all of a sudden for an huge amount.  The department has not issued the electricity bill to the complainant on consumption basis since 7/09 to 5/13 and they issued the electricity bill on average and minimum basis.  Somehow the department issued the bill for 160, 320 and 640 units without any base.  The department itself admits that the meter is running correctly and they issued the last bill for the month of 5/15 after showing 46 units as consumption meter reading.

          The perusal of the copy of ledger sheet shows that upto 5/2015 the complainant has used 3381 units of electricity energy.

          In our view, the ends of justice would be fully met if some directions are given to both the parties. Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondents to charge the amount of units 3381 upto 5/2015 and also to charge the amount from the complainant for the units consumed after 3381.  The respondents are directed not to charge the surcharge from the complainant.  Besides this, the complainant is also directed to pay Rs.20,000/- (Rs.twenty thousand) to the respondents because the complainant has used the electricity energy extensively for the last more-than 10 years without paying even a single penny to the department and it is obligatory duty of the complainant that he should pay the electricity charges if he used the electricity energy extensively.  The respondent is also directed to issue the revised bill to the complainant after taking into consideration the above said directions. 

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands disposed off.        Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of costs.

              File be consigned after due compliance.

 

(Prabha Wati) (D.V.Rathi)           (Nagender Singh)           

Member,DCDRF, Member, DCDRF,          President, DCDRF

Sonepat.      Sonepat.                Sonepat.

 

Announced 25.02.2016