Haryana

Sonipat

351/2014

SANTOSH DEVI W/O ANOOP SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

11. UHBVNL GOHANA,2. SDO UHBVNL GOHANA - Opp.Party(s)

R.L. SINGLA

29 Oct 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

 

                Complaint No.351 of 2014

Instituted on: 18.12.2014                                                     

Date of order:  29.10.2015

 

 

Santosh Devi wife of Anoop Singh, Chopra Colony, Gohana, tehsil Gohana, distt. Sonepat.

…Complainant.          Versus

1.      Executive Engineer, UHBVN Ltd.,  Division Gohana, tehsil Gohana, distt. Sonepat.

2.      SDO UHBVN  Division Gohana, tehsil Gohana, distt. Sonepat.

 

                                                                                                …Respondent.

 

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. RL Singla, Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. Mahavir Singh, Advocate 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 herself to be the consumer of the respondents vide account no.CG-17-2215-L.  The load of the complainant’s connection is 0.200 KW. The meter of the complainant became defective and the respondents removed the same vide MCO NO.5/188 dated 16.7.2014 and at that time, reading was 969 in the meter.  But the complainant was surprised to receive a bill by showing new reading 12272 and consumed unit 11303 for Rs.89395/- for the month of 7/14 to 9/14. The complainant has alleged the said bill to be wrong and illegal. So, she has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.      In reply, the respondents have submitted that the meter of the complainant was not OK at the time of its removal.  The meter was changed after consumption of 12272 units and 969 units got less and 11603 units were remaining and 2210 units were also got less and thereafter 9093 units remain and the bill of Rs.89395/- issued to the complainant legally and correctly.  There is no illegality on the part of the respondents while sending the bill of Rs.89395/- to the complainant and thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and 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.  All the documents have been perused very carefully and minutely.  

4.       After hearing learned counsel for both the parties at length and after going through the entire relevant records, we find the respondents deficient in their services.

         As per Annexure R2, the consumption of the complainant was shown as 66 units in the bill 3/11 and 108 units in the bill 5/11.  Thereafter in 7/11 and 9/11 the premises of the complainant were found locked.  Thereafter from 11/11 to 6/14 the respondents issued the bill after showing the meter of the complainant as defective.  Thereafter in the bill for the month of 8/14, the bill was issued on consumption basis and units consumed were shown as 11303.  The new meter was installed in the premises of the complainant and the bills were issued to her on consumption basis from 10/14.  If the respondents have issued the bills from 11/11 to 6/14 considering the meter defective, then how the meter became OK and in running condition in the month of 8/14.  No Meter Change Order has been placed on record by the respondents.  So, it is held that the bill of Rs.89395/- sent by the respondents to the complainant is wrong.  Thus, we hereby direct the respondents to issue the revised bill to the complainant without charging any surcharge after overhauling the account of the complainant for the period 7/11 to 8/14 after taking base of the reading w.e.f. 2/15 to 6/15.  The respondents are further directed to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.two thousand for deficient services, harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.  The amount of compensation is also directed to be adjusted in the future bills issued to the complainant.

         With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands disposed off. The respondents are further directed to make the compliance of this order within one month from the date of passing of this order, failing which, the law will take its own recourse.

         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 29.10.2015