Haryana

Sonipat

355/2014

NARENDER KUMAR S/O MAHABIR SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. UHBVNL ,2. A.E.E. UHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

S.K. KAUSHIK

26 Oct 2015

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SONEPAT.

                                                      

                                    Complaint No.355 of 2014

                                    Instituted on:23.12.2014

                                    Date of order:26.10.2015

 

 

Narender Kumar son of Mahabir Singh, r/o Gali no.7, Rishi Colony, Sonepat.

 

      …….Complainant

 

                        VERSUS

 

1. The SDO UHBVN Ltd., Sub Division City, Sonepat.
2. AEE UHBVN Ltd. Sub Division City, Sonepat.

 

     ……..Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Shri Pardeep Vats, Adv. for complainant.

           Shri Jaideep Kaushik Adv. for respondents.

 

BEFORE-     Nagender Singh, President.

            Smt. Prabha Wati, Member.

            D.V. Rathi, Member.

 

O R D E R

 

           Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging himself to be the consumer of the respondents vide account no.CT-18-1648-A. The respondents have sent wrong and illegal bill dated 4.10.2014 for Rs.3961/-. The complainant approached the respondents for rectification of the bill.  JE Balwan Singh checked the meter and found it in working order and reading was 7032.  But the meter reader show the status of the meter as defective and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        The respondents appeared and filed their written statement submitting therein that during the period from 10/13 to5/14 at the time of visit of meter reader, the meter of the complainant was shown as defective and thus, the complainant was charged on average basis i.e. 100 units for two months and when the meter reader checked the meter of the complainant, it was found old reader as 5832 and new reading 6848 and then the account of the complainant was overhauled and after adjusting 500 units already charged, the complainant was charged for 496 units for the period 10/13 to 5/14 and the amount found due and payable by the complainant till then comes to Rs.3671/- and this amount has been charged in the bill dated 4.10.2014 and the total amount so charged comes to Rs.3961/- which includes the current consumption charges which is correct and is legally payable by the complainant.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and thus, the complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation 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 has also gone through the entire relevant records available on the case file very carefully and minutely.

4.         Ld. Counsel for the respondents has submitted that during the period from 10/13 to5/14 at the time of visit of meter reader, the meter of the complainant was shown as defective and thus, the complainant was charged on average basis i.e. 100 units for two months and when the meter reader checked the meter of the complainant, it was found old reader as 5832 and new reading 6848 and then the account of the complainant was overhauled and after adjusting 500 units already charged, the complainant was charged for 496 units for the period 10/13 to 5/14 and the amount found due and payable by the complainant till then comes to Rs.3671/- and this amount has been charged in the bill dated 4.10.2014 and the total amount so charged comes to Rs.3961/- which includes the current consumption charges which is correct and is legally payable by the complainant.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and thus, the complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation.

           The complainant has placed on record the copy of reply of notice sent by the respondents, vide which the counsel of the complainant was informed regarding the amount of Rs.3671/- charged by the department in the bill in question.  As per this reply and documents R1 and R2, the respondents charged the bill for the month of 10/13 to 5/14 on average basis as defective meter.  Later-on the respondents have issued the bills on consumption basis.  In these 5 bimonthly bills, the complainant has paid the amount of 496 units, whereas total units were 996.  In our view, the charging of amount from the complainant by the respondents is correct, but in five bimonthly bills, they have shown the status of the meter as defective and they have mentioned the meter reading without visiting the house of the complainant.  Thus, for this act, we held the respondents deficient in their services and we direct the respondents to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.2000/- (Rs.two thousands) for rendering deficient services, harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.  The respondents are further directed to adjust this amount of compensation in the account of the complainant in future electricity bills.

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

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

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

(Prabha Devi-Member)    (D.V.Rathi)         (Nagender Singh-President)

DCDRF, Sonepat.      DCDRF, Sonepat.      DCDRF Sonepat.

 

Announced 26.10.2015