Haryana

Sonipat

CC/36/2015

MANJU W/O NARESH DAHIYA - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. UHBVNL LTD.,2. UHBVNL LTD. POWER HOUSE - Opp.Party(s)

N.K. DAHIYA

14 Sep 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

 

                Complaint No.36 of 2015

Instituted on: 10.02.2015                                                     

Date of order:  14.09.2015

 

 

Manju wife of Naresh Dahiya, r/o H.No. DB 666, West Ram Nagar, Sonepat.

…Complainant.          Versus

1.      UHBVN Ltd., Sub Division S11-Industrial, Sonepat through SDO.

2.      UHBVN Ltd., Power House, Fazilpur Sonepat through XEN.

 

                                                                                                …Respondents.

 

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. NK Dahiya, Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. Rajesh Chhikara, Advocate for respondents.

 

Before-    Nagender Singh-President.

          Prabha Wati-Member.

           D.V. Rathi-Member.

 

O R D E R

 

1.       Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging herself to be the consumer of the respondents vide account no.IA32-6437W. The complainant has received the wrong and illegal bill dated 11.1.2015 for a sum of Rs.37201/- for consumption of 4928 units.  It is submitted that sudden rise in meter reading shows that either the meter has gone faulty or has jumped. The complainant has alleged this demand of the respondent to be wrong and illegal. So, she has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.       In reply, the respondents have alleged that the bill issued to the complainant is legal and   correct and the same is according to the reading shown by the meter.  The consumption for the relevant period is 4928 units.  So, the complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation oand 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.  All the documents have been perused very carefully and minutely.  

         Ld. counsel for the respondent has argued that the bill issued to the complainant are legal and   correct and the same is according to the reading shown by the meter.

         We have perused the consumption data Ex.R1 very carefully.  This consumption data shows the reading as 4928 units in the month of 1/15, whereas prior to this, it was 100 units in 3/14, 33 units in 5/14, 196 units in 7/14, 95 units in 9/14, 50 units  in 11/14.  So, in our view, the reading 4928 units in the month of 1/15 might be due to meter jump or due to any other technical defect in the meter.  So, in our view, the ends of justice would be fully met if directions to overhaul the account of the complainant is given to the respondent. Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondents to issue the revised bill to the complainant and to overhaul the account of the complainant for the month of 1/15 after taking the average of the meter reading for the month of 3/15, 5/15 and 7/15.  The respondents are further directed to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.2000/- (Rs.two thousands) for deficiency in service, harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.

 

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

         Certified copy of this order he provided to both the parties free of cost.

         File be consigned after due compliance.

 

 

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

Member,DCDRF, Member, DCDRF           President, DCDRF

Sonepat.      Sonepat.                Sonepat.

 

Announced 14.09.2015