Haryana

Sonipat

CC/169/2015

TARA CHAND S/O KANHIYA LAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER UTTAR HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

PANKAJ ROHILLA

11 Apr 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

               

 

                                Complaint No.169 of 2015

                                Instituted on:18.05.2015

                                Date of order:11.04.2016

 

Tara Chand son of Kanhiya Lal, resident of Prem Nagar, village Murthal, tehsil and distt. Sonepat.

                                                     ...Complainant.

 

                        Versus

 

1. SDO  UHBVN Ltd., Murthal, Sonepat.
2. XEN UHBVN Ltd ITI Chowk, Sonepat.

                                                        ..Respondents

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. Pankaj Rohila, Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. Amit Balyan, Adv. for respondents.

 

BEFORE-    NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

          SMT.PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

          

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that he is having an electricity connection no.MU28-1158K and  has been making the payment of bills regularly to the respondent.  But the complainant has received a bill dated 10.12.2014 for Rs.1656/- only for the reading shown in the bill as 132.  The complainant has made a representation and the respondent without permission of the complainant has removed the old electricity meter and installed a new meter and new reading shown in the bill is 52 units and the bill has been issued for Rs.28297/- for the month of 10.4.2015.  The complainant has alleged the act and conduct of the respondent to be wrong and illegal. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

  2.     The  respondents in their reply has submitted that

the electricity bill of Rs.1656/- issued to the complainant is legal and genuine.  As per the report no.97/202 dated 15.1.2015 the electricity meter of the complainant was found defective and the same was replaced with new meter.  The bill of Rs.28297/- issued to the complainant is also legal and is binding upon the complainant.  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 ld. Counsel for both the parties at length and has gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

4.        In the present case, the complainant has raised objection regarding the bill dated 10.12.2014 for the period 22.9.2014 to 22.11.2014 and another bill dated 10.4.2015 for the period 22.1.2015 to 22.3.2015.  In the bill dated 10.12.2014 the consumed units has been shown as 122 whereas arrear charges shown as Rs.1002/-.

          The complainant has not shown any receipt that he has already deposited the amount of Rs.1002/- with the respondent regarding his consumption.  Moreover, the last payment status bill shown in Ex.C2 shows that no payment has been made prior to 25.6.2014.  So, the bill itself shows that an amount of Rs.1002/- shown as arrear are the pending bill due against the complainant and the bill dated 10.12.2014 amounting to Rs.1608/- includes the current consumption and previous arrear due against the complainant.  So, this bill dated 10.12.2014 was rightly issued to the complainant by the respondents as per rules of the Nigam.

          As far as the bill (Ex.C1) of Rs.28297/- is concerned, in this bill, Rs.27807/- is shown as arrears and Rs.489/- has been shown as current cycle charges. 

          In the present case, the respondents have placed on record the document Ex.R1 and R2 i.e. Copy of Meter Change Order and Copy of ledger for the period 12/14 to 4/15. 

          The main question raised in the present complaint by the complainant is that the bill of Rs.28297/- has been issued to the complainant by the respondent after showing consumed units as 48.  The respondents have changed the electricity meter of the complainant on 15.1.2015 and this fact has been admitted by the respondents in their written statement and affidavit of the SDO itself that the complainant’s meter was found defective, so the respondents had removed the defective meter and have installed a new meter.  This fact is clear from the document Ex.R1.  But the reading in the Meter Change Order is shown as 9665.1 units, whereas the last bill on the consumption basis was issued on 10.12.2014 after showing the new reading as 6311.  So, in the MCO wrong reading has been shown by the respondents because it is admitted by the respondents that the meter was defective, so how the meter reading comes in the meter as 9665.1 units.  In our view, the bill dated 10.4.2015 Ex.C1 was partly wrongly issued by the respondents. In this bill, the arrear charges were shown as Rs.27807/-  were wrongly demanded from the complainant by the respondents without any base.  So, the bill dated 10.4.2015 is needs to be rectified partly and the complainant is only liable to pay Rs.489/- to the complainant as minimum charges.

          Thus, we hereby direct the respondents to consider the bill for the period 2/15 and 4/15 on minimum charge basis and to accept the amount of Rs.489/- each against the above said bill and further to charge the amount of Rs.1608/- from the complainant.

          In the present case, vide order dated 18.5.2015, the complainant was directed to deposit Rs.6000/- against the bill dated 10.4.2015 worth Rs.29135/- and if the above said amount was deposited by the complainant with the respondents, in that event, the respondents are directed to deduct the amount of Rs.489+489+1608=2586/- from the amount of Rs.6000/- and the balance amount of Rs.3414/- is directed to be adjusted in the future bills of the complainant.  However, it is made clear here that if the above said amount of Rs.6000/- is not deposited by the complainant, in that event, the respondents shall charge the amount of Rs.2586/- from the complainant.

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of costs.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)                        (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF                             DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced: 11.04.2016