Haryana

Sonipat

08/2015

PREM CHAND S/O LAXMI CHAND - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. THE UTTAR H.B.V.N.L.,2. THE HUNIOR ENGINEER CITY SUB DIVISION,3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER CITY SUB - Opp.Party(s)

VINOD SHARMA

21 Aug 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

               

 

                                Complaint No.08 of 2015

                                Instituted on:09.01.2015

                                Date of order:21.08.2015

 

Prem Chand son of late Lakhmi Chand, r/o H.No.224/597(old 2/.526), Narain Gali, attached with Suri Petrol Pump Wali Gali, Arya Nagar, Sonepat.

 

                                                      ...Complainant.

 

                        Versus

 

1. The UHBVN Ltd., Sonepat through its SDO OP  City Sub Division (Industrial) Sonepat.
2. The Unior Engineer, City Sub Division (Industrial) Sonepat.
3. The Executive Engineer, City Sub Division(OP) UHBVN Ltd., Sonepat.

                    

                                                      ...Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF       

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh.  Naresh Sharma Adv. for complainant.

           Sh.  Amit Balyan, Adv. For respondents.                

 

 

BEFORE     NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

          PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

          D.V. RATHI, MEMBER.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that he is consumer of the respondent.  In the month of 7/2014 the complainant received the bill from the respondent for the period w.e.f. 7.5.2014 to 7.7.2014 for consumption of 6018 units showing old meter reading as 23810 and new meter reading as 29826. The complainant moved an application for correction of the bill but the same has not brought any fruitful result.  The next bill for the period w.e.f 7.7.2014 to 7.9.2014 for Rs.47745/- was issued by the respondents showing therein the new reading as 25645 and old reading as 29828.  The complainant received another electricity bill dated 26.11.2014 for an amount of Rs.7040/- wherein the respondents have charged 397 units more-than the required  and in this way, the respondents unnecessarily harassed and humiliated the complainant. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        The respondents appeared and has filed the written statement submitting therein that as per consumption data/record, the electricity bill of the complainant was corrected.   After deducting the reading the bill amount was shown Rs.45896/- which has been refunded to the complainant by the respondents and the balance amount is outstanding against the complainant as per his actual reading.  The bill amount of Rs.7040/- is legal and valid and the same is binding on the rights of the complainant and the complainant is liable to pay the same to the respondents.  Thus, the complainant is not entitled for any relief and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by the ld. Counsel for both the parties at length and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

 

4.        Ld. Counsel for the respondent has argued that  as per consumption data/record, the electricity bill of the complainant was corrected.   After deducting the reading the bill amount was shown Rs.45896/- which has been refunded to the complainant by the respondents and the balance amount is outstanding against the complainant as per his actual reading.

 

          The bare perusal of the document R4 shows that in the month of 10/14, new reading in the consumption data is mentioned as 25645 and old reading is mentioned as 29828.  Regarding this mistake, the department has refunded the amount of Rs.45896/- to the complainant.  But again as per the consumption data, in the month of 12/14, the old reading is mentioned as 25279, whereas the new reading is mentioned in 10/14 as 25645.  So, the department has wrongly mentioned the old reading in the month of 12/14 as 25279 whereas it should be 25645.  So, again the department has charged the electricity charges in the month of 12/14 after showing the consumption units as 969.  Infact if the new reading in the month of 10/14 was 25645, in that situation, the old reading in the month of 12/14 should be 25279.  In this way, the respondents have wrongly charged excess units as 366 and the complainant is entitled to get refund the amount of 366 units also from the respondents.

 

          From the above contentions, it is clearly proved that there is deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and this has caused unnecessarily harassment to the complainant who has alleged himself to be the heart patient.  In our view, this all has happened due to the carelessness act on the part of the officials of the respondents and for the lapses on the part of the officials of the respondents, the complainant cannot be made to suffer.  Accordingly, it is directed to the respondents to issue the bills to the complainant in future as per actual meter reading in a careful manner.  Since the complainant has been able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the respondents, the respondents are also directed to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.6000/- (Rs.six thousands) for causing unnecessary mental agony, harassment and under the head of litigation expenses and this amount of compensation and the refund of 366 units is also directed to be adjusted in the subsequent future bills of 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 cost.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)        (DV Rathi)                 (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF        Member DCDRF                   DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced:21.08.2015